IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/bie/wpaper/689.html

Strategic Information Selection

Author

Listed:
  • Preker, Jurek

    (Center for Mathematical Economics, Bielefeld University)

  • Karos, Dominik

    (Center for Mathematical Economics, Bielefeld University)

Abstract

Before choosing her action to match the state of the world, an agent observes a stream of messages generated by some unknown binary signal. The agent can either learn the underlying signal for free and update her belief accordingly or ignore the observed message and keep her prior belief. After each period the stream stops with positive probability and the final choice is made. We show that a Markovian agent with Gilboa-Schmeidler preferences learns and updates after confirming messages, but she ignores contradicting messages if her belief is sufficiently strong. Her threshold solely depends on the least precise signal. The agent has strictly higher anticipatory utility than an agent who uses every message to update. However, the latter has a higher chance to choose the correct outcome in the end. In a population of strategic agents, who only differ in their initial beliefs, polarization is inevitable.

Suggested Citation

  • Preker, Jurek & Karos, Dominik, 2024. "Strategic Information Selection," Center for Mathematical Economics Working Papers 689, Center for Mathematical Economics, Bielefeld University.
    • Handle: RePEc:bie:wpaper:689
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://pub.uni-bielefeld.de/download/2988382/2988383
    File Function: First Version, 2024
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Loewenstein, George, 1987. "Anticipation and the Valuation of Delayed Consumption," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 97(387), pages 666-684, September.
    2. Bracha, Anat & Brown, Donald J., 2012. "Affective decision making: A theory of optimism bias," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 75(1), pages 67-80.
    3. Machina, Mark J, 1989. "Dynamic Consistency and Non-expected Utility Models of Choice under Uncertainty," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 27(4), pages 1622-1668, December.
    4. Peter Klibanoff & Massimo Marinacci & Sujoy Mukerji, 2005. "A Smooth Model of Decision Making under Ambiguity," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 73(6), pages 1849-1892, 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. Preker, Jurek & Karos, Dominik, 2025. "Strategic Information Selection," VfS Annual Conference 2025 (Cologne): Revival of Industrial Policy 325446, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    2. Dominiak, Adam & Duersch, Peter & Lefort, Jean-Philippe, 2012. "A dynamic Ellsberg urn experiment," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 75(2), pages 625-638.
    3. Basieva, Irina & Khrennikova, Polina & Pothos, Emmanuel M. & Asano, Masanari & Khrennikov, Andrei, 2018. "Quantum-like model of subjective expected utility," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 150-162.
    4. Bleichrodt, Han & Eichberger, Jürgen & Grant, Simon & Kelsey, David & Li, Chen, 2021. "Testing dynamic consistency and consequentialism under ambiguity," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 134(C).
    5. Ned Augenblick & Muriel Niederle & Charles Sprenger, 2013. "Working Over Time: Dynamic Inconsistency in Real Effort Tasks," NBER Working Papers 18734, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    6. Faruk Gul & Paulo Natenzon & Wolfgang Pesendorfer, 2020. "Random Evolving Lotteries and Intrinsic Preference for Information," Working Papers 2020-71, Princeton University. Economics Department..
    7. George Wu, 1999. "Anxiety and Decision Making with Delayed Resolution of Uncertainty," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 46(2), pages 159-199, April.
    8. Vassili Vergopoulos, 2011. "Dynamic consistency for non-expected utility preferences," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 48(2), pages 493-518, October.
    9. Heyen, Daniel, 2018. "Ambiguity aversion under maximum-likelihood updating," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 80342, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    10. Li, Chen & Turmunkh, Uyanga & Wakker, Peter P., 2020. "Social and strategic ambiguity versus betrayal aversion," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 123(C), pages 272-287.
    11. LANGE Andreas & TREICH Nicolas, 2007. "Uncertainty, Learning and Ambiguity in Economic Models on Climate Policy: Some Classical Results and New Directions," LERNA Working Papers 07.16.237, LERNA, University of Toulouse.
    12. Au, Pak Hung, 2016. "Price reaction and disagreement over public signal," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 81-106.
    13. Stefan Trautmann & Peter P. Wakker, 2018. "Making the Anscombe-Aumann approach to ambiguity suitable for descriptive applications," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 56(1), pages 83-116, February.
    14. Kuzmics, Christoph, 2017. "Abraham Wald's complete class theorem and Knightian uncertainty," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 666-673.
    15. Zuber, Stéphane, 2016. "Harsanyi’s theorem without the sure-thing principle: On the consistent aggregation of Monotonic Bernoullian and Archimedean preferences," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 78-83.
    16. Aurélien Baillon & Han Bleichrodt & Chen Li & Peter P. Wakker, 2025. "Source Theory: A Tractable and Positive Ambiguity Theory," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 71(10), pages 8767-8782, October.
    17. Jürgen Eichberger & Simon Grant & David Kelsey, 2016. "Randomization and dynamic consistency," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 62(3), pages 547-566, August.
    18. Li, Jian, 2020. "Preferences for partial information and ambiguity," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 15(3), July.
    19. Coutts, Alexander, 2019. "Testing models of belief bias: An experiment," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 549-565.
    20. Michel Grabisch & Benjamin Monet & Vassili Vergopoulos, 2023. "Subjective expected utility through stochastic independence," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 76(3), pages 723-757, October.

    More about this item

    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:bie:wpaper:689. 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: Bettina Weingarten (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/imbiede.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.