IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kea/keappr/ker-20220101-38-1-06.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Revealing Negative Information in Monopoly and Duopoly Settings: Experimental Analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Dmitry A. Shapiro

    (Seoul National University)

  • Jaesun Lee

    (Tongji University)

Abstract

We provide an experimental analysis of the setting where a seller, either a monopolist or a duopolist, sells a product with quality that is unobservable to buyers. The seller can send either an honest or dishonest cheap-talk message to buyers about the product quality. We show that low-quality sellers have a positive propensity to communicate their low-quality to buyers. Communicating low-quality results in buyers’ higher-propensity to purchase the product and introduces product differentiation in a duopoly. We do not find strong evidence that communicating low-quality information negatively affects sellers’ profit: the effect is often insignificant, and in some treatments it becomes significantly positive. Finally, revealing negative information has a strong positive welfare effect in a monopoly, where it raises the likelihood of product purchase; but a weak or negative effect in a duopoly, where it boosts the likelihood of purchasing a socially inefficient low-quality product.

Suggested Citation

  • Dmitry A. Shapiro & Jaesun Lee, 2022. "Revealing Negative Information in Monopoly and Duopoly Settings: Experimental Analysis," Korean Economic Review, Korean Economic Association, vol. 38, pages 167-205.
  • Handle: RePEc:kea:keappr:ker-20220101-38-1-06
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://keapaper.kea.ne.kr/RePEc/kea/keappr/KER-20220101-38-1-06.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jos Jansen & Andreas Pollak, 2015. "Strategic Disclosure of Demand Information by Duopolists: Theory and Experiment," Discussion Paper Series of the Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods 2015_09, Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods.
    2. Uri Gneezy, 2005. "Deception: The Role of Consequences," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 95(1), pages 384-394, March.
    3. Ackert, Lucy F. & Church, Bryan K. & Sankar, Mandira Roy, 2000. "Voluntary disclosure under imperfect competition: experimental evidence," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 18(1), pages 81-105, January.
    4. Anbarcı, Nejat & Feltovich, Nick & Gürdal, Mehmet Y., 2015. "Lying about the price? Ultimatum bargaining with messages and imperfectly observed offers," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 346-360.
    5. Dmitry Shapiro & Seung Huh, 2021. "Incentives of low‐quality sellers to disclose negative information," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(1), pages 81-99, February.
    6. Pigors, Mark & Rockenbach, Bettina, 2016. "The competitive advantage of honesty," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 407-424.
    7. Rankin, Frederick W., 2003. "Communication in ultimatum games," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 81(2), pages 267-271, November.
    8. Crowley, Ayn E & Hoyer, Wayne D, 1994. "An Integrative Framework for Understanding Two-Sided Persuasion," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 20(4), pages 561-574, March.
    9. Liang Guo & Ying Zhao, 2009. "Voluntary Quality Disclosure and Market Interaction," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 28(3), pages 488-501, 05-06.
    10. Urs Fischbacher, 2007. "z-Tree: Zurich toolbox for ready-made economic experiments," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 10(2), pages 171-178, June.
    11. Qiyan Ong & Yohanes Riyanto & Steven Sheffrin, 2012. "How does voice matter? Evidence from the ultimatum game," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 15(4), pages 604-621, December.
    12. David Dranove & Ginger Zhe Jin, 2010. "Quality Disclosure and Certification: Theory and Practice," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 48(4), pages 935-963, December.
    13. Siegenthaler, Simon, 2017. "Meet the lemons: An experiment on how cheap-talk overcomes adverse selection in decentralized markets," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 147-161.
    14. Croson, Rachel & Boles, Terry & Murnighan, J. Keith, 2003. "Cheap talk in bargaining experiments: lying and threats in ultimatum games," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 51(2), pages 143-159, June.
    15. Pedro M. Gardete, 2013. "Cheap-Talk Advertising and Misrepresentation in Vertically Differentiated Markets," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 32(4), pages 609-621, July.
    16. Uwe Dulleck & Rudolf Kerschbamer & Matthias Sutter, 2011. "The Economics of Credence Goods: An Experiment on the Role of Liability, Verifiability, Reputation, and Competition," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 101(2), pages 526-555, April.
    17. Kyungmin Kim, 2012. "Endogenous market segmentation for lemons," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 43(3), pages 562-576, September.
    18. Oliver Board, 2009. "Competition And Disclosure," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 57(1), pages 197-213, 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. Lee, Jaesun & Shapiro, Dmitry, 2023. "Quality communication via cheap-talk messages in experimental auctions," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 212(C), pages 74-107.

    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. Lee, Jaesun & Shapiro, Dmitry, 2023. "Quality communication via cheap-talk messages in experimental auctions," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 212(C), pages 74-107.
    2. Ferreira, Mark, 2017. "When knowledge is not power: Asymmetric information, probabilistic deceit detection and threats in ultimatum bargainingAuthor-Name: Chavanne, David," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 4-17.
    3. Dmitry Shapiro & Seung Huh, 2021. "Incentives of low‐quality sellers to disclose negative information," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(1), pages 81-99, February.
    4. Radu, Vranceanu & Delphine, Dubart, 2019. "Experimental evidence on deceitful communication: does everyone have a price ?," ESSEC Working Papers WP1806, ESSEC Research Center, ESSEC Business School.
    5. Mago, Shakun D. & Pate, Jennifer & Razzolini, Laura, 2024. "Experimental evidence on the role of outside obligations in wage negotiations," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 219(C), pages 528-548.
    6. Jung, Seeun & Vranceanu, Radu, 2015. "Experimental Evidence on Gender Interaction in Lying Behavior," ESSEC Working Papers WP1514, ESSEC Research Center, ESSEC Business School, revised Oct 2015.
    7. Chloe Tergiman & Marie Claire Villeval, 2019. "The Way People Lie in Markets," Working Papers halshs-02292040, HAL.
    8. Siegenthaler, Simon, 2017. "Meet the lemons: An experiment on how cheap-talk overcomes adverse selection in decentralized markets," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 147-161.
    9. Rafiq Friperson & Hessel Oosterbeek & Bas van der Klaauw, 2023. "Competition modulates buyers’ reaction to sellers’ cheap talk," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 23-035/V, Tinbergen Institute.
    10. Vranceanu, Radu & Dubart, Delphine, 2019. "Deceitful communication in a sender-receiver experiment: Does everyone have a price?," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 43-52.
    11. Ezquerra, Lara & Gómez-Miñambres, Joaquín & Jimenez, Natalia & Kujal, Praveen, 2023. "The effect of wage proposals on efficiency and income distribution," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 216(C), pages 469-493.
    12. Kriss, Peter H. & Nagel, Rosemarie & Weber, Roberto A., 2013. "Implicit vs. explicit deception in ultimatum games with incomplete information," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 337-346.
    13. Vera Angelova & Tobias Regner, 2012. "Do voluntary payments to advisors improve the quality of financial advice? An experimental sender-receiver game," Jena Economics Research Papers 2012-011, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena.
    14. Adrian de Groot Ruiz & Theo Offerman & Sander Onderstal, 2011. "An Experimental Study of Credible Deviations and ACDC," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 11-153/1, Tinbergen Institute.
    15. Momsen, Katharina, 2021. "Recommendations in credence goods markets with horizontal product differentiation," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 183(C), pages 19-38.
    16. Daniel W. Elfenbein & Raymond Fisman & Brian McManus, 2019. "Does Cheap Talk Affect Market Outcomes? Evidence from eBay," American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, American Economic Association, vol. 11(4), pages 305-326, October.
    17. Adrian Groot Ruiz & Theo Offerman & Sander Onderstal, 2014. "For those about to talk we salute you: an experimental study of credible deviations and ACDC," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 17(2), pages 173-199, June.
    18. Konrad Stahl & Roland Strausz, 2017. "Certification and Market Transparency," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 84(4), pages 1842-1868.
    19. Hoffmann, Mareike & Lauer, Thomas & Rockenbach, Bettina, 2013. "The royal lie," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 305-313.
    20. Yola Engler & Lionel Page, 2022. "Driving a hard bargain is a balancing act: how social preferences constrain the negotiation process," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 93(1), pages 7-36, July.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Negative Information; Lemon Market; Cheap-talk; Information Disclosure;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C9 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments
    • D21 - Microeconomics - - Production and Organizations - - - Firm Behavior: Theory
    • L15 - Industrial Organization - - Market Structure, Firm Strategy, and Market Performance - - - Information and Product Quality

    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:kea:keappr:ker-20220101-38-1-06. 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: KEA (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/keaaaea.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.