IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/rje/randje/v36y20051p113-130.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

When Do Experts Cheat and Whom Do They Target?

Author

Listed:
  • Yuk-fai Fong

    () (Northwestern University)

Abstract

A credence good is a product or service whose usefulness or necessity is better known to the seller than to the buyer. This information asymmetry often persists even after the credence good is consumed. I propose two new theories of expert cheating, suggesting that identifiable heterogeneities among customers can cause expert sellers to defraud their customers. According to these theories, cheating arises as a substitute for price discrimination, and experts cheat selectively. For instance, experts target high-valuation and high-cost customers. Finally, selective cheating may damage the communication of useful information from customers to experts and result in inferior services.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
  • Handle: RePEc:rje:randje:v:36:y:2005:1:p:113-130
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Uwe Dulleck & Rudolf Kerschbamer & Alexander Konovalov, 2014. "Too much or too little? Price-discrimination in a market for credence goods," Working Papers 2014-13, Faculty of Economics and Statistics, University of Innsbruck.
    2. Uwe Dulleck & Jiong Gong & Jianpei Li, 2015. "Contracting for Infrastructure Projects as Credence Goods," Journal of Public Economic Theory, Association for Public Economic Theory, vol. 17(3), pages 328-345, June.
    3. Fong, Yuk-fai & Liu, Ting & Wright, Donald J., 2014. "On the role of verifiability and commitment in credence goods markets," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 118-129.
    4. Ting Liu, 2011. "Credence Goods Markets With Conscientious And Selfish Experts," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 52(1), pages 227-244, February.
    5. 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.
    6. 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).
    7. 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.
    8. Uwe Dulleck & Rudolf Kerschbamer & Matthias Sutter, 2011. "The Economics of Credence Goods: An Experiment on the Role of Liability, Verifiability, Reputation, and Competition," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 101(2), pages 526-555, April.
    9. Chen, Yongmin & Li, Jianpei & Zhang, Jin, 2017. "Liability in Markets for Credence Goods," MPRA Paper 80206, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    10. Helmut Bester & Matthias Dahm, 2014. "Credence Goods, Costly Diagnosis, and Subjective Evaluation," Discussion Papers 2014-13, The Centre for Decision Research and Experimental Economics, School of Economics, University of Nottingham.
    11. Jennifer Brown & Dylan Minor, 2015. "Misconduct in Financial Services: Differences across Organizations," Harvard Business School Working Papers 16-022, Harvard Business School.
    12. Raskovich, Alexander, 2007. "Retail buyer power through steering," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 96(2), pages 221-225, August.
    13. Alexander Rasch & Christian Waibel, 2013. "What drives fraud in a credence goods market? Evidence from a field study," CER-ETH Economics working paper series 13/179, CER-ETH - Center of Economic Research (CER-ETH) at ETH Zurich.
    14. Calcagno, Riccardo & Giofré, Maela & Urzì-Brancati, Maria Cesira, 2017. "To trust is good, but to control is better: How investors discipline financial advisors’ activity," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 140(C), pages 287-316.
    15. repec:eee:ecolet:v:166:y:2018:i:c:p:35-39 is not listed on IDEAS
    16. Dulleck, Uwe & Kerschbamer, Rudolf, 2009. "Experts vs. discounters: Consumer free-riding and experts withholding advice in markets for credence goods," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 27(1), pages 15-23, January.
    17. Ouyang, Yaofu, 2016. "Credence Goods, Risk Averse, and Optimal Insurance," MPRA Paper 70392, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    18. Dominik Erharter, 2012. "Credence goods markets, distributional preferences and the role of institutions," Working Papers 2012-11, Faculty of Economics and Statistics, University of Innsbruck.
    19. Nathaniel G. Hilger, 2016. "Why Don't People Trust Experts?," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 59(2), pages 293-311.
    20. Li, Jianpei & Ouyang, Yaofu, 2016. "Expert Costs and the Role of Verifiability," MPRA Paper 74390, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    21. Andrew F. Daughety & Jennifer F. Reinganum, 2011. "Search, Bargaining, And Agency in the Market for Legal Services," Vanderbilt University Department of Economics Working Papers 1106, Vanderbilt University Department of Economics.
    22. Seung Lee, 2013. "Ethics and Expertise: A Social Networks Perspective," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 118(3), pages 607-621, December.
    23. Laurens G. Debo & L. Beril Toktay & Luk N. Van Wassenhove, 2008. "Queuing for Expert Services," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 54(8), pages 1497-1512, August.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Asymmetric and Private Information Search; Learning; Information and Knowledge Information and Product Quality; Standardization and Compatibility Information;

    JEL classification:

    • D82 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Asymmetric and Private Information; Mechanism Design
    • D83 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Search; Learning; Information and Knowledge; Communication; Belief; Unawareness
    • L15 - Industrial Organization - - Market Structure, Firm Strategy, and Market Performance - - - Information and Product Quality

    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:rje:randje:v:36:y:2005:1:p:113-130. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (). General contact details of provider: http://www.rje.org .

    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.

    We have no references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.