IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ajk/ajkdps/004.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Reveal it or conceal it: On the value of second opinions in a low-entry-barriers credence goods market

Author

Listed:
  • Parampreet Christopher Bindra

    (Department of Economics, University of Innsbruck)

  • Rudolf Kerschbamer

    (Department of Economics, University of Innsbruck)

  • Daniel Neururer

    (Department of Economics, University of Innsbruck)

  • Matthias Sutter

    (Max Planck Institute for Research into Collective Goods, Bonn)

Abstract

Credence goods markets with their asymmetric information between buyers and sellers are prone to large inefficiencies. In theory, poorly informed consumers can protect themselves from maltreatment through sellers by asking for second opinions from other sellers. Yet, empirical evidence whether this is a successful strategy is scarce. Here we present a natural field experiment in the market for computer repairs. We find that revealing a second opinion from another expert to the seller does neither increase the rate of successful repairs nor decrease the average repair price. We assess under which conditions gathering a second opinion can be valuable.

Suggested Citation

  • Parampreet Christopher Bindra & Rudolf Kerschbamer & Daniel Neururer & Matthias Sutter, 2020. "Reveal it or conceal it: On the value of second opinions in a low-entry-barriers credence goods market," ECONtribute Discussion Papers Series 004, University of Bonn and University of Cologne, Germany.
    • Handle: RePEc:ajk:ajkdps:004
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econtribute.de/RePEc/ajk/ajkdps/ECONtribute_004_2020.pdf
    File Function: First version, 2020
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Loukas Balafoutas & Rudolf Kerschbamer & Matthias Sutter, 2017. "Second‐Degree Moral Hazard In A Real‐World Credence Goods Market," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 127(599), pages 1-18, February.
    2. Balafoutas, Loukas & Kerschbamer, Rudolf, 2020. "Credence goods in the literature: What the past fifteen years have taught us about fraud, incentives, and the role of institutions," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 26(C).
    3. Rudolf Kerschbamer & Daniel Neururer & Matthias Sutter, 2019. "Credence goods markets and the informational value of new media: A natural field experiment," Working Papers 2019-02, Faculty of Economics and Statistics, Universität Innsbruck.
    4. 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.
    5. Kai Sülzle & Achim Wambach, 2005. "Insurance in a Market for Credence Goods," Journal of Risk & Insurance, The American Risk and Insurance Association, vol. 72(1), pages 159-176, March.
    6. Loukas Balafoutas & Adrian Beck & Rudolf Kerschbamer & Matthias Sutter, 2013. "What Drives Taxi Drivers? A Field Experiment on Fraud in a Market for Credence Goods," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 80(3), pages 876-891.
    7. Steffen Huck & Gabriele K. Lünser & Jean-Robert Tyran, 2016. "Price competition and reputation in markets for experience goods: an experimental study," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 47(1), pages 99-117, February.
    8. Fang Liu & Alexander Rasch & Marco Alexander Schwarz & Christian Waibel, 2020. "The Role of Diagnostic Ability in Markets for Expert Services," CESifo Working Paper Series 8704, CESifo.
    9. Loukas Balafoutas & Rudolf Kerschbamer & Matthias Sutter, 2017. "Second‐Degree Moral Hazard In A Real‐World Credence Goods Market," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 127(599), pages 1-18, February.
    10. Rudolf Kerschbamer & Matthias Sutter, 2017. "The Economics of Credence Goods – a Survey of Recent Lab and Field Experiments," CESifo Economic Studies, CESifo Group, vol. 63(1), pages 1-23.
    11. Wolfgang Pesendorfer & Asher Wolinsky, 2003. "Second Opinions and Price Competition: Inefficiency in the Market for Expert Advice," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 70(2), pages 417-437.
    12. Huck, Steffen & Lünser, Gabriele K. & Tyran, Jean-Robert, 2012. "Competition fosters trust," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 76(1), pages 195-209.
    13. 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.
    14. 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.
    15. Schneider, Tim & Bizer, Kilian, 2017. "Effects of qualification in expert markets with price competition and endogenous verifiability," University of Göttingen Working Papers in Economics 317, University of Goettingen, Department of Economics.
    16. Felix Gottschalk & Wanda Mimra & Christian Waibe, 2020. "Health Services as Credence Goods: a Field Experiment," The Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 130(629), pages 1346-1383.
    17. Mimra, Wanda & Rasch, Alexander & Waibel, Christian, 2016. "Second opinions in markets for expert services: Experimental evidence," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 131(PB), pages 106-125.
    18. Rudolf Kerschbamer & Daniel Neururer & Matthias Sutter, 2016. "Insurance coverage of customers induces dishonesty of sellers in markets for credence goods," Natural Field Experiments 00639, The Field Experiments Website.
    19. Henry S. Schneider, 2012. "Agency Problems and Reputation in Expert Services: Evidence from Auto Repair," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 60(3), pages 406-433, September.
    20. Nelson, Phillip, 1970. "Information and Consumer Behavior," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 78(2), pages 311-329, March-Apr.
    21. Jishnu Das & Alaka Holla & Aakash Mohpal & Karthik Muralidharan, 2016. "Quality and Accountability in Health Care Delivery: Audit-Study Evidence from Primary Care in India," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 106(12), pages 3765-3799, December.
    22. Agarwal, Ritu & Liu, Che-Wei & Prasad, Kislaya, 2019. "Personal research, second opinions, and the diagnostic effort of experts," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 158(C), pages 44-61.
    23. Felix Gottschalk & Wanda Mimra & Christian Waibel, 2020. "Health Services as Credence Goods: a Field Experiment," Post-Print hal-03137768, HAL.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. 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).

    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. Balafoutas, Loukas & Kerschbamer, Rudolf, 2020. "Credence goods in the literature: What the past fifteen years have taught us about fraud, incentives, and the role of institutions," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 26(C).
    2. Loukas Balafoutas & Helena Fornwagner & Rudolf Kerschbamer & Matthias Sutter & Maryna Tverdostup, 2020. "Diagnostic Uncertainty and Insurance Coverage in Credence Goods Markets," Discussion Paper Series of the Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods 2020_26, Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods.
    3. Bindra, Parampreet Christopher & Kerschbamer, Rudolf & Neururer, Daniel & Sutter, Matthias, 2021. "On the value of second opinions: A credence goods field experiment," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 205(C).
    4. 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).
    5. Katharina Momsen & Markus Ohndorf, 2022. "Seller Opportunism in Credence Good Markets – The Role of Market Conditions," Working Papers 2022-10, Faculty of Economics and Statistics, Universität Innsbruck.
    6. Angerer, Silvia & Glätzle-Rützler, Daniela & Waibel, Christian, 2023. "Framing and subject pool effects in healthcare credence goods," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 103(C).
    7. Silvia Angerer & Daniela Glätzle-Rützler & Christian Waibel, 2021. "Trust in health care credence goods: Experimental evidence on framing and subject pool effects," Working Papers 2021-13, Faculty of Economics and Statistics, Universität Innsbruck.
    8. Gerlach, Heiko & Li, Junqian, 2022. "Experts, trust and competition," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 198(C), pages 552-578.
    9. Momsen, Katharina, 2021. "Recommendations in credence goods markets with horizontal product differentiation," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 183(C), pages 19-38.
    10. Martin Obradovits & Philipp Plaickner, 2024. "Searching for Treatment," Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics (JITE), Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, vol. 180(1), pages 144-186.
    11. Silvia Angerer & Daniela Glätzle‐Rützler & Christian Waibel, 2021. "Monitoring institutions in healthcare markets: Experimental evidence," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 30(5), pages 951-971, May.
    12. Fang Liu & Alexander Rasch & Marco A. Schwarz & Christian Waibel, 2020. "The role of diagnostic ability in markets for expert services," Working Papers 2020-07, Faculty of Economics and Statistics, Universität Innsbruck.
    13. Iman Ahmadi, 2023. "Face/Off: The adverse effects of increased competition," Quantitative Marketing and Economics (QME), Springer, vol. 21(2), pages 183-279, June.
    14. 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.
    15. Dufwenberg, Martin & Feldman, Paul & Servátka, Maroš & Tarrasó, Jorge & Vadovič, Radovan, 2023. "Honesty in the city," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 139(C), pages 15-25.
      • Dufwenberg, Martin & Servátka, Maroš & Tarrasó, Jorge & Vadovič, Radovan, 2021. "Honesty in the City," MPRA Paper 106256, University Library of Munich, Germany.
      • Martin Dufwenberg & Paul Feldman & Maros Servatka & Jorge Tarraso & Radovan Vadovic, 2022. "Honesty in the City," Working Papers 2022-03, University of Alaska Anchorage, Department of Economics.
      • Dufwenberg, Martin & Feldman, Paul & Servátka, Maroš & Tarrasó, Jorge & Vadovič, Radovan, 2022. "Honesty in the city," MPRA Paper 115044, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    16. Agarwal, Ritu & Liu, Che-Wei & Prasad, Kislaya, 2019. "Personal research, second opinions, and the diagnostic effort of experts," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 158(C), pages 44-61.
    17. Liu, Ting & Ma, Ching-to Albert, 2024. "Equilibrium information in credence goods," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 145(C), pages 84-101.
    18. Schneider, Tim & Bizer, Kilian, 2017. "Expert qualification in markets for expert services: A Sisyphean Task?," University of Göttingen Working Papers in Economics 323, University of Goettingen, Department of Economics.
    19. Huck, Steffen & Lünser, Gabriele & Spitzer, Florian & Tyran, Jean-Robert, 2016. "Medical insurance and free choice of physician shape patient overtreatment: A laboratory experiment," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 131(PB), pages 78-105.
    20. Bruno Lanz and Evert Reins, 2021. "Asymmetric Information on the Market for Energy Efficiency: Insights from the Credence Goods Literature," The Energy Journal, International Association for Energy Economics, vol. 0(Number 4).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Credence goods; expert services; second opinions; natural field experiment;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C93 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Field Experiments
    • D82 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Asymmetric and Private Information; Mechanism Design

    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:ajk:ajkdps:004. 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: ECONtribute Office (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.econtribute.de .

    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.