IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jeborg/v125y2016icp57-66.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Do as I say, not as I do: Choice–advice differences in decisions to learn information

Author

Listed:
  • Barkan, Rachel
  • Danziger, Shai
  • Shani, Yaniv

Abstract

We find that people choose to learn interesting but useless information, yet advise others to resist this temptation. By contrast, when the information is boring but important people recommend others to learn it, but are less likely to learn it themselves. In five experiments participants were randomly assigned the role of chooser or adviser. Experiment 1a showed choosers paid real money for useless information, whereas advisers recommended others to resist the temptation. Experiment 1b showed this choice–advice difference persisted when participants introspected on their decisions in a hypothetical setting. Using an introspection task, experiment 2 demonstrated choosers’ decisions relied more heavily on curiosity, whereas advisers’ recommendations relied on the value of the information. Next, we examined the case where information is boring but important. In a hypothetical setting, experiment 3a revealed the vast majority of advisers recommended to learn the important information, whereas choosers were less enthusiastic about the boring information. Finally, experiment 3b demonstrated the majority of choosers chose not to pay actual money to learn the important information, whereas the majority of advisers recommended paying to learn it. We conclude by offering ways to utilize curiosity to encourage people to learn important information.

Suggested Citation

  • Barkan, Rachel & Danziger, Shai & Shani, Yaniv, 2016. "Do as I say, not as I do: Choice–advice differences in decisions to learn information," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 125(C), pages 57-66.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:jeborg:v:125:y:2016:i:c:p:57-66
    DOI: 10.1016/j.jebo.2016.02.005
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167268116000354
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.jebo.2016.02.005?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. Read, Daniel & van Leeuwen, Barbara, 1998. "Predicting Hunger: The Effects of Appetite and Delay on Choice, , , ," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 76(2), pages 189-205, November.
    2. Loewenstein, George & Adler, Daniel, 1995. "A Bias in the Prediction of Tastes," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 105(431), pages 929-937, July.
    3. Loewenstein, George, 1996. "Out of Control: Visceral Influences on Behavior," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 65(3), pages 272-292, March.
    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. Lane, Tom, 2022. "Intrinsic preferences for unhappy news," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 202(C), pages 119-130.

    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. George Loewenstein & Ted O'Donoghue & Matthew Rabin, 2003. "Projection Bias in Predicting Future Utility," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 118(4), pages 1209-1248.
    2. Gilbert, Daniel T. & Gill, Michael J. & Wilson, Timothy D., 2002. "The Future Is Now: Temporal Correction in Affective Forecasting," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 88(1), pages 430-444, May.
    3. Sophie Bienenstock & Maïva Ropaul, 2018. "On the benefits of being naive: the choice of contract duration with projection bias," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 45(3), pages 469-496, June.
    4. repec:cup:judgdm:v:17:y:2022:i:5:p:988-1014 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. Read, Daniel & Roelofsma, Peter H. M. P., 2003. "Subadditive versus hyperbolic discounting: A comparison of choice and matching," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 91(2), pages 140-153, July.
    6. McLeish, Kendra N & Oxoby, Robert J, 2006. "Measuring Impatience: Elicited Discount Rates and the Barratt Impulsiveness Scale," MPRA Paper 1524, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    7. repec:jdm:journl:v:17:y:2022:i:5:p:988-1014 is not listed on IDEAS
    8. Daniel Kahneman & Richard H. Thaler, 2006. "Anomalies: Utility Maximization and Experienced Utility," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 20(1), pages 221-234, Winter.
    9. Rhodes, Charles, 2012. "A Dynamic Model of Failure to Maximize Utility in the Chronic Consumer Choice to Consume Foods High in Added Sugars," 2012 Annual Meeting, August 12-14, 2012, Seattle, Washington 124693, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    10. Ted O'Donoghue & Matthew Rabin, 2001. "Risky Behavior among Youths: Some Issues from Behavioral Economics," NBER Chapters, in: Risky Behavior among Youths: An Economic Analysis, pages 29-68, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    11. Katherine L. Milkman & Todd Rogers & Max H. Bazerman, 2007. "Highbrow Films Gather Dust: A Study of Dynamic Inconsistency and Online DVD Rentals," Harvard Business School Working Papers 07-099, Harvard Business School, revised Apr 2008.
    12. Polman, Evan & Ruttan, Rachel L. & Peck, Joann, 2022. "Using curiosity to incentivize the choice of “should” options," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 173(C).
    13. Alex Imas & Michael A. Kuhn & Vera Mironova, 2015. "A History of Violence: Field Evidence on Trauma, Discounting and Present Bias," CESifo Working Paper Series 5338, CESifo.
    14. Choi, Kang Jun & Jia, He Michael & Lee, Jae Young & Kim, B. Kyu & Kim, Keunwoo, 2022. "Hedonic myopia: Emphasizing hedonic benefits of non-perishable food makes consumers insensitive to expiration dates in food purchase," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 138(C), pages 193-202.
    15. Read, Daniel & van Leeuwen, Barbara, 1998. "Predicting Hunger: The Effects of Appetite and Delay on Choice, , , ," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 76(2), pages 189-205, November.
    16. Kaufmann, Marc, 2022. "Projection bias in effort choices," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 135(C), pages 368-393.
    17. Noor, Jawwad, 2007. "Commitment and self-control," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 135(1), pages 1-34, July.
    18. Teresa Briz & Andreas Drichoutis & Lisa House, 2015. "Examining projection bias in experimental auctions: the role of hunger and immediate gratification," Agricultural and Food Economics, Springer;Italian Society of Agricultural Economics (SIDEA), vol. 3(1), pages 1-17, December.
    19. Dilip Soman & George Ainslie & Shane Frederick & Xiuping Li & John Lynch & Page Moreau & Andrew Mitchell & Daniel Read & Alan Sawyer & Yaacov Trope & Klaus Wertenbroch & Gal Zauberman, 2005. "The Psychology of Intertemporal Discounting: Why are Distant Events Valued Differently from Proximal Ones?," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 16(3), pages 347-360, December.
    20. Leonhard K. Lades & Ewa Zawojska & Robert J. Johnston & Nick Hanley & Liam Delaney & Mikołaj Czajkowski, 2022. "Anomalies or Expected Behaviors? Understanding Stated Preferences and Welfare Implications in Light of Contemporary Behavioral Theory," Working Papers 2022-20, Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw.
    21. Mancino, Lisa & Kinsey, Jean D., 2008. "Is Dietary Knowledge Enough? Hunger, Stress, and Other Roadblocks to Healthy Eating," Economic Research Report 56465, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    22. Youenn Loheac, 2019. "Faim et décisions intertemporelles : littérature expérimentale et illustration empirique," Post-Print halshs-02472148, HAL.

    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:eee:jeborg:v:125:y:2016:i:c:p:57-66. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jebo .

    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.