IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/theord/v62y2007i4p335-353.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Valuing Others’ Information under Imperfect Expectations

Author

Listed:
  • Hagen Lindstädt

Abstract

Sometimes we believe that others receive harmful information. However, Marschak’s value of information framework always assigns non-negative value under expected utility: it starts from the decision maker’s beliefs – and one can never anticipate information’s harmfulness for oneself. The impact of decision makers’ capabilities to process information and of their expectations remains hidden behind the individual and subjective perspective Marschak’s framework assumes. By introducing a second decision maker as a point of reference, this paper introduces a way for evaluating others’ information from a cross-individual, imperfect expectations perspective for agents maximising expected utility. We define the cross-value of information that can become negative – then the information is “harmfulâ€\x9D from a cross-individual perspective – and we define (mutual) cost of limited information processing capabilities and imperfect expectations as an opportunity cost from this same point of reference. The simple relationship between these two expected utility-based concepts and Marschak’s framework is shown, and we discuss evaluating short-term reactions of stock market prices to new information as an important domain of valuing others’ information. Copyright Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007

Suggested Citation

  • Hagen Lindstädt, 2007. "Valuing Others’ Information under Imperfect Expectations," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 62(4), pages 335-353, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:theord:v:62:y:2007:i:4:p:335-353
    DOI: 10.1007/s11238-007-9039-1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s11238-007-9039-1
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11238-007-9039-1?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. Simon Grant & Atsushi Kajii & Ben Polak, 1996. "Preference for Information," Cowles Foundation Discussion Papers 1114, Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics, Yale University.
    2. Jacob Marschak, 1959. "Efficient and Viable Organizational Forms," Cowles Foundation Discussion Papers 65, Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics, Yale University.
    3. John Conlisk, 1996. "Why Bounded Rationality?," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 34(2), pages 669-700, June.
    4. Simon Grant & Atsushi Kajii & Ben Polak, 2000. "Preference for Information and Dynamic Consistency," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 48(3), pages 263-286, May.
    5. James G. March, 1978. "Bounded Rationality, Ambiguity, and the Engineering of Choice," Bell Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 9(2), pages 587-608, Autumn.
    6. Lipman, Barton L, 1991. "How to Decide How to Decide How to. . . : Modeling Limited Rationality," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 59(4), pages 1105-1125, July.
    7. Hagen LINDSTÄDT, 2001. "More nonconcavities in information processing functions," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 51(2), pages 351-365, December.
    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. Elie Ofek & Muhamet Yildiz & Ernan Haruvy, 2007. "The Impact of Prior Decisions on Subsequent Valuations in a Costly Contemplation Model," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 53(8), pages 1217-1233, August.
    2. Hanoch, Yaniv, 2002. ""Neither an angel nor an ant": Emotion as an aid to bounded rationality," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 23(1), pages 1-25, February.
    3. Augier, Mie & March, James G., 2002. "A model scholar: Herbert A. Simon (1916-2001)," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 49(1), pages 1-17, September.
    4. Xavier Gabaix & David Laibson & Guillermo Moloche & Stephen Weinberg, 2006. "Costly Information Acquisition: Experimental Analysis of a Boundedly Rational Model," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 96(4), pages 1043-1068, September.
    5. Jacobs Martin, 2016. "Accounting for Changing Tastes: Approaches to Explaining Unstable Individual Preferences," Review of Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 67(2), pages 121-183, August.
    6. Caulkins, Jonathan P. & Feichtinger, Gustav & Grass, Dieter & Hartl, Richard F. & Kort, Peter M. & Seidl, Andrea, 2013. "When to make proprietary software open source," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 37(6), pages 1182-1194.
    7. Augier, Mie, 2001. "Sublime Simon: The consistent vision of economic psychology's Nobel laureate," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 22(3), pages 307-334, June.
    8. Markus Pasche, 2001. "Equilibrium Concepts for Boundedly Rational Behavior in Games," Working Paper Series B 2001-03, Friedrich Schiller University of Jena, School of of Economics and Business Administration.
    9. Botond Kőszegi, 2010. "Utility from anticipation and personal equilibrium," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 44(3), pages 415-444, September.
    10. Thomas J. Miceli & Alanson P. Minkler, 1997. "Preferences, cooperation, and Institutions," Working papers 1997-06, University of Connecticut, Department of Economics.
    11. Sulka, Tomasz, 2022. "Planning and saving for retirement," DICE Discussion Papers 384, Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf Institute for Competition Economics (DICE).
    12. Patrick Bolton & Antoine Faure-Grimaud, 2009. "Thinking Ahead: The Decision Problem," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 76(4), pages 1205-1238.
    13. J. Barkley Rosser, 2001. "Alternative Keynesian and Post Keynesian Perspective on Uncertainty and Expectations," Journal of Post Keynesian Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 23(4), pages 545-566, July.
    14. Buschena, David & Zilberman, David, 1992. "Not Just Another Paper Showing Violations of the Expected Utility Model: The Effects of Alternative Similarity on Risky Choice," CUDARE Working Papers 198603, University of California, Berkeley, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics.
    15. Buschena, David E. & Zilberman, David, 1992. "Similarity of Choices and the Performance of the Expected Utility Approach: Empirical Results," 1992 Quantifying Long Run Agricultural Risks and Evaluating Farmer Responses to Risk Meeting, March 22-25, 1992, Orlando, Florida 307868, Regional Research Projects > S-232: Quantifying Long Run Agricultural Risks and Evaluating Farmer Responses to Risk.
    16. Morris Altman, 2019. "Implications of smart decision-making and heuristics for production theory and material welfare," Mind & Society: Cognitive Studies in Economics and Social Sciences, Springer;Fondazione Rosselli, vol. 18(2), pages 167-179, December.
    17. Todd, Peter M. & Gigerenzer, Gerd, 2003. "Bounding rationality to the world," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 24(2), pages 143-165, April.
    18. Heinrich, Timo & Arya, Bindu & Haering, Alexander & Horak, Sven, 2022. "Costly information acquisition: The influence of stakeholder earnings," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 90(C).
    19. Caroline C. Brock & Bradford L. Barham, 2013. "‘Milk is Milk’: Organic Dairy Adoption Decisions and Bounded Rationality," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 5(12), pages 1-26, December.
    20. J. Barkley Rosser, 2003. "A Nobel Prize for Asymmetric Information: The economic contributions of George Akerlof, Michael Spence and Joseph Stiglitz," Review of Political Economy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 15(1), pages 3-21.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    value of information; decision under risk; imperfect expectations; cross-value of information; harmful information; stock market prices; D80; D82; D83;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D80 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - General
    • 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

    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:kap:theord:v:62:y:2007:i:4:p:335-353. 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.