IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/awi/wpaper/0682.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

A Test of Information Aversion

Author

Listed:
  • Kops, Christopher
  • Pasichnichenko, Illia

Abstract

The standard Bayesian model implies that information can never have a negative value. We put this implication to the proof. Our paper provides the first test of the value (positive or negative) of information under uncertainty. We show that the “Bayesian implication” stands in conflict with the information-averse behavior that is revealed in our experiment. This behavior demonstrates that the value of truthful and unambiguous information may indeed be negative. Our findings complement predictions from recent theoretical work in showing that negative value of information correlates with ambiguity aversion. This highlights the importance of counseling for decision-making under uncertainty.

Suggested Citation

  • Kops, Christopher & Pasichnichenko, Illia, 2020. "A Test of Information Aversion," Working Papers 0682, University of Heidelberg, Department of Economics.
    • Handle: RePEc:awi:wpaper:0682
    Note: This paper is part of http://archiv.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/volltextserver/view/schriftenreihen/sr-3.html
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bsz:16-heidok-282444
    File Function: Frontdoor page on HeiDOK
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://archiv.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/volltextserver/28244/7/Kops_2020_dp682.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jason Dana & Roberto Weber & Jason Kuang, 2007. "Exploiting moral wiggle room: experiments demonstrating an illusory preference for fairness," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 33(1), pages 67-80, October.
    2. Eliaz, Kfir & Spiegler, Ran, 2006. "Can anticipatory feelings explain anomalous choices of information sources?," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 56(1), pages 87-104, July.
    3. Arthur Snow, 2010. "Ambiguity and the value of information," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 40(2), pages 133-145, April.
    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. Kellner, Christian & Le Quement, Mark T. & Riener, Gerhard, 2022. "Reacting to ambiguous messages: An experimental analysis," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 360-378.
    2. Berger, Loïc, 2022. "What is partial ambiguity?," Economics and Philosophy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 38(2), pages 206-220, July.

    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. Linda Thunström & Jonas Nordström & Jason F. Shogren & Mariah Ehmke & Klaas Veld, 2016. "Strategic self-ignorance," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 52(2), pages 117-136, April.
    2. Kops, Christopher & Pasichnichenko, Illia, 2023. "Testing negative value of information and ambiguity aversion," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 213(C).
    3. Russell Golman & George Loewenstein & Andras Molnar & Silvia Saccardo, 2022. "The Demand for, and Avoidance of, Information," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 68(9), pages 6454-6476, September.
    4. Marta Serra-Garcia & Nora Szech, 2023. "Incentives and Defaults Can Increase COVID-19 Vaccine Intentions and Test Demand," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 69(2), pages 1037-1049, February.
    5. Kusterer, David & Bolton, Gary & Mans, Johannes, 2016. "Inflated Reputations Uncertainty, Leniency & Moral Wiggle Room in Trader Feedback Systems," VfS Annual Conference 2016 (Augsburg): Demographic Change 145794, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    6. Graf, Caroline & Suanet, Bianca & Wiepking, Pamala & Merz, Eva-Maria, 2023. "Social norms offer explanation for inconsistent effects of incentives on prosocial behavior," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 211(C), pages 429-441.
    7. Zachary Grossman, 2014. "Strategic Ignorance and the Robustness of Social Preferences," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 60(11), pages 2659-2665, November.
    8. Gary Bolton & Eugen Dimant & Ulrich Schmidt, 2018. "When a Nudge Backfires. Using Observation with Social and Economic Incentives to Promote Pro-Social Behavior," PPE Working Papers 0017, Philosophy, Politics and Economics, University of Pennsylvania.
    9. Fanghella, Valeria & Ibanez, Lisette & Thøgersen, John, 2025. "What you don't know, can't hurt you: Avoiding donation requests for environmental causes," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 233(C).
    10. Breitmoser, Yves & Tan, Jonathan H.W., 2013. "Reference dependent altruism in demand bargaining," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 127-140.
    11. Eugenio Verrina, 2023. "Upset but (almost) correct: a conceptual replication of Di Tella, Perez-Truglia, Babino and Sigman (2015)," Journal of the Economic Science Association, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 9(2), pages 327-336, December.
    12. Bauer, Kevin & Gill, Andrej, 2021. "Mirror, mirror on the wall: Machine predictions and self-fulfilling prophecies," SAFE Working Paper Series 313, Leibniz Institute for Financial Research SAFE.
    13. Emin Karagözoğlu & Elif Tosun, 2022. "Endogenous Game Choice and Giving Behavior in Distribution Games," Games, MDPI, vol. 13(6), pages 1-32, November.
    14. Christian Thoeni & Simon Gaechter, 2011. "Peer Effects and Social Preferences in Voluntary Cooperation," Discussion Papers 2011-09, The Centre for Decision Research and Experimental Economics, School of Economics, University of Nottingham.
    15. Nils Köbis & Jean-François Bonnefon & Iyad Rahwan, 2021. "Bad machines corrupt good morals," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 5(6), pages 679-685, June.
    16. Michael Kurschilgen, 2023. "Moral awareness polarizes people’s fairness judgments," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 61(2), pages 339-364, August.
    17. Gantner, Anita & Horn, Kristian & Kerschbamer, Rudolf, 2016. "Fair and efficient division through unanimity bargaining when claims are subjective," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 56-73.
    18. Katharina Momsen & Markus Ohndorf, 2019. "When do people exploit moral wiggle room? An experimental analysis in a market setup," Working Papers 2019-03, Faculty of Economics and Statistics, Universität Innsbruck.
    19. Andrea Guido & Alejandro Martinez-Marquina & Ryan Rholes, 2020. "Information Asymmetry and Beliefs Reveal Self Interest Not Fairness," GREDEG Working Papers 2020-53, Groupe de REcherche en Droit, Economie, Gestion (GREDEG CNRS), Université Côte d'Azur, France.
    20. Philip E. Tetlock & Barbara A. Mellers & J. Peter Scoblic, 2017. "Sacred versus Pseudo-sacred Values: How People Cope with Taboo Trade-Offs," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 107(5), pages 96-99, May.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    value of Information; ambiguity aversion; Ellsberg paradox; Ellsberg urn;
    All these keywords.

    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:awi:wpaper:0682. 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: Gabi Rauscher The email address of this maintainer does not seem to be valid anymore. Please ask Gabi Rauscher to update the entry or send us the correct address (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/awheide.html .

    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.