IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/joecth/v79y2025i1d10.1007_s00199-024-01568-7.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Network effects on information acquisition by DeGroot updaters

Author

Listed:
  • Miguel Risco

    (University of Bonn)

Abstract

In today’s world, social networks have a significant impact on information processes, shaping individuals’ beliefs and influencing their decisions. This paper proposes a model to understand how boundedly rational (DeGroot) individuals behave when seeking information to make decisions in situations where both social communication and private learning take place. The model assumes that information is a local public good, and individuals must decide how much effort to invest in costly information sources to improve their knowledge of the state of the world. Depending on the network structure and agents’ positions, some individuals will invest in private learning, while others will free-ride on the social supply of information. The model shows that multiple equilibria can arise, and uniqueness is controlled by the lowest eigenvalue of a matrix determined by the network. The lowest eigenvalue roughly captures how two-sided a network is. Two-sided networks feature multiple equilibria. Under a utilitarian perspective, agents would be more informed than they are in equilibrium. Social welfare would be improved if influential agents increased their information acquisition levels.

Suggested Citation

  • Miguel Risco, 2025. "Network effects on information acquisition by DeGroot updaters," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 79(1), pages 201-234, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:joecth:v:79:y:2025:i:1:d:10.1007_s00199-024-01568-7
    DOI: 10.1007/s00199-024-01568-7
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s00199-024-01568-7
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s00199-024-01568-7?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. Giorgio Fagiolo & Javier Reyes & Stefano Schiavo, 2010. "The evolution of the world trade web: a weighted-network analysis," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 20(4), pages 479-514, August.
    2. Dasaratha, Krishna & He, Kevin, 2020. "Network structure and naive sequential learning," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 15(2), May.
    3. George J. Mailath, 1998. "Corrigenda [Do People Play Nash Equilibrium? Lessons from Evolutionary Game Theory]," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 36(4), pages 1941-1941, December.
    4. Benjamin Golub & Matthew O. Jackson, 2012. "How Homophily Affects the Speed of Learning and Best-Response Dynamics," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 127(3), pages 1287-1338.
    5. Mueller-Frank, Manuel & Neri, Claudia, 2021. "A general analysis of boundedly rational learning in social networks," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 16(1), January.
    6. Abhijit Banerjee & Emily Breza & Arun G. Chandrasekhar & Markus Mobius, 2021. "Naïve Learning with Uninformed Agents," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 111(11), pages 3540-3574, November.
    7. Yann Bramoull? & Rachel Kranton & Martin D'Amours, 2014. "Strategic Interaction and Networks," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 104(3), pages 898-930, March.
    8. Daron Acemoglu & Asuman Ozdaglar, 2011. "Opinion Dynamics and Learning in Social Networks," Dynamic Games and Applications, Springer, vol. 1(1), pages 3-49, March.
    9. Peter M. DeMarzo & Dimitri Vayanos & Jeffrey Zwiebel, 2003. "Persuasion Bias, Social Influence, and Unidimensional Opinions," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 118(3), pages 909-968.
    10. Myatt, David P. & Wallace, Chris, 2019. "Information acquisition and use by networked players," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 182(C), pages 360-401.
    11. Veronika Grimm & Friederike Mengel, 2020. "Experiments on Belief Formation in Networks," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 18(1), pages 49-82.
    12. Larry Samuelson, 2002. "Evolution and Game Theory," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 16(2), pages 47-66, Spring.
    13. Corazzini, Luca & Pavesi, Filippo & Petrovich, Beatrice & Stanca, Luca, 2012. "Influential listeners: An experiment on persuasion bias in social networks," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 56(6), pages 1276-1288.
    14. Pooya Molavi & Alireza Tahbaz‐Salehi & Ali Jadbabaie, 2018. "A Theory of Non‐Bayesian Social Learning," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 86(2), pages 445-490, March.
    15. Acemoglu, Daron & Ozdaglar, Asuman & ParandehGheibi, Ali, 2010. "Spread of (mis)information in social networks," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 70(2), pages 194-227, November.
    16. George J. Mailath, 1998. "Do People Play Nash Equilibrium? Lessons from Evolutionary Game Theory," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 36(3), pages 1347-1374, September.
    17. Aumann, Robert J., 1997. "Rationality and Bounded Rationality," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 21(1-2), pages 2-14, October.
    18. Emerson Melo, 2022. "On the uniqueness of quantal response equilibria and its application to network games," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 74(3), pages 681-725, October.
    19. Arun G. Chandrasekhar & Horacio Larreguy & Juan Pablo Xandri, 2020. "Testing Models of Social Learning on Networks: Evidence From Two Experiments," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 88(1), pages 1-32, January.
    20. Bramoulle, Yann & Kranton, Rachel, 2007. "Public goods in networks," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 135(1), pages 478-494, July.
    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. Buechel, Berno & Klößner, Stefan & Meng, Fanyuan & Nassar, Anis, 2023. "Misinformation due to asymmetric information sharing," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 150(C).
    2. Jeong, Daeyoung & Shin, Euncheol, 2024. "Optimal influence design in networks," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 220(C).
    3. Mueller-Frank, Manuel, 2024. "As strong as the weakest node: The impact of misinformation in social networks," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 215(C).
    4. Della Lena, Sebastiano, 2024. "The spread of misinformation in networks with individual and social learning," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 168(C).
    5. Syngjoo Choi & Edoardo Gallo & Shachar Kariv, 2015. "Networks in the laboratory," Cambridge Working Papers in Economics 1551, Faculty of Economics, University of Cambridge.
    6. Michel Grabisch & Agnieszka Rusinowska, 2020. "A Survey on Nonstrategic Models of Opinion Dynamics," Games, MDPI, vol. 11(4), pages 1-29, December.
    7. Eger, Steffen, 2016. "Opinion dynamics and wisdom under out-group discrimination," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 97-107.
    8. Anufriev, Mikhail & Borissov, Kirill & Pakhnin, Mikhail, 2023. "Dissonance minimization and conversation in social networks," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 215(C), pages 167-191.
    9. Isabel Melguizo, 2019. "Homophily and the Persistence of Disagreement," The Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 129(619), pages 1400-1424.
    10. Li, Wei & Tan, Xu, 2021. "Cognitively-constrained learning from neighbors," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 32-54.
    11. Gallo, E. & Langtry, A., 2020. "Social Networks, Confirmation Bias and Shock Elections," Cambridge Working Papers in Economics 2099, Faculty of Economics, University of Cambridge.
    12. Rapanos, Theodoros, 2023. "What makes an opinion leader: Expertise vs popularity," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 138(C), pages 355-372.
    13. Edoardo Gallo & Alastair Langtry, 2020. "Social networks, confirmation bias and shock elections," Papers 2011.00520, arXiv.org.
    14. Simone Cerreia-Vioglio & Roberto Corrao & Giacomo Lanzani, 2020. "Robust Opinion Aggregation and its Dynamics," Working Papers 662, IGIER (Innocenzo Gasparini Institute for Economic Research), Bocconi University.
    15. Sebastiano Della Lena, 2019. "Non-Bayesian Social Learning and the Spread of Misinformation in Networks," Working Papers 2019:09, Department of Economics, University of Venice "Ca' Foscari".
    16. Buechel, Berno & Hellmann, Tim & Klößner, Stefan, 2015. "Opinion dynamics and wisdom under conformity," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 240-257.
    17. Crès, Hervé & Tvede, Mich, 2022. "Aggregation of opinions in networks of individuals and collectives," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 199(C).
    18. Berno Buechel & Stefan Klößner & Martin Lochmüller & Heiko Rauhut, 2020. "The strength of weak leaders: an experiment on social influence and social learning in teams," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 23(2), pages 259-293, June.
    19. Förster, Manuel & Mauleon, Ana & Vannetelbosch, Vincent J., 2016. "Trust and manipulation in social networks," Network Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 4(2), pages 216-243, June.
    20. Miguel Risco, 2023. "Network Effects on Information Acquisition by DeGroot Updaters," CRC TR 224 Discussion Paper Series crctr224_2023_420v2, University of Bonn and University of Mannheim, Germany.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Information acquisition; Learning; Public goods; Network effects; Information diffusion; Bounded rationality;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D61 - Microeconomics - - Welfare Economics - - - Allocative Efficiency; Cost-Benefit Analysis
    • D83 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Search; Learning; Information and Knowledge; Communication; Belief; Unawareness
    • D85 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Network Formation
    • H41 - Public Economics - - Publicly Provided Goods - - - Public Goods

    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:spr:joecth:v:79:y:2025:i:1:d:10.1007_s00199-024-01568-7. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.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.