IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/jothpo/v27y2015i3p380-400.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The overvaluing of expertise in discussion partner choice

Author

Listed:
  • T.K. Ahn

    (Department of Political Science and International Relations, Seoul National University, Korea)

  • John Barry Ryan

    (Department of Political Science, Stony Brook University, USA)

Abstract

Since the introduction of economic theory to political science, theorists have argued that discussion could serve as an effective information shortcut if individuals communicate with experts who have similar preferences. Previous experimental and survey studies have found mixed results for the efficacy of social communication, but they have not observed the process of discussion partner selection which is so central to the previous models. This paper presents the results of a group-based experiment that allows for discussion partner selection. We fail to find aggregate enlightenment through social communication: lesser informed subjects are helped by social communication, but better informed subjects are harmed. This result is caused in part because subjects are too willing to seek out more expert discussion partners who have different ex ante preferences.

Suggested Citation

  • T.K. Ahn & John Barry Ryan, 2015. "The overvaluing of expertise in discussion partner choice," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 27(3), pages 380-400, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:jothpo:v:27:y:2015:i:3:p:380-400
    DOI: 10.1177/0951629814531672
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0951629814531672
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0951629814531672?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. T. K. Ahn & Robert Huckfeldt & Alexander K. Mayer & John Barry Ryan, 2013. "Expertise and Bias in Political Communication Networks," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 57(2), pages 357-373, April.
    2. Ernst Fehr & Klaus M. Schmidt, 1999. "A Theory of Fairness, Competition, and Cooperation," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 114(3), pages 817-868.
    3. Lupia, Arthur, 2006. "How Elitism Undermines the Study of Voter Competence," MPRA Paper 349, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    4. 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.
    5. Joseph Farrell & Matthew Rabin, 1996. "Cheap Talk," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 10(3), pages 103-118, Summer.
    6. Nickerson, David W., 2008. "Is Voting Contagious? Evidence from Two Field Experiments," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 102(1), pages 49-57, February.
    7. Richey, Sean, 2008. "The Autoregressive Influence of Social Network Political Knowledge on Voting Behaviour," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 38(3), pages 527-542, July.
    8. David A. Siegel, 2009. "Social Networks and Collective Action," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 53(1), pages 122-138, January.
    9. Smith, Vernon L, 1982. "Microeconomic Systems as an Experimental Science," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 72(5), pages 923-955, December.
    10. Anthony Downs, 1957. "An Economic Theory of Political Action in a Democracy," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 65(2), pages 135-135.
    11. Crawford, Vincent P & Sobel, Joel, 1982. "Strategic Information Transmission," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 50(6), pages 1431-1451, November.
    12. Robert Huckfeldt & Ken'ichi Ikeda & Franz Urban Pappi, 2005. "Patterns of Disagreement in Democratic Politics: Comparing Germany, Japan, and the United States," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 49(3), pages 497-514, July.
    13. John Barry Ryan, 2011. "Social Networks as a Shortcut to Correct Voting," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 55(4), pages 753-766, October.
    14. Brady, Henry E. & Sniderman, Paul M., 1985. "Attitude Attribution: A Group Basis for Political Reasoning," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 79(4), pages 1061-1078, 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. James E. Alt & Amalie Jensen & Horacio Larreguy & David D. Lassen & John Marshall, 2022. "Diffusing Political Concerns: How Unemployment Information Passed between Social Ties Influences Danish Voters," Post-Print hal-03566206, HAL.
    2. Barreda-Tarrazona, Iván & García-Gallego, Aurora & Georgantzís, Nikolaos & Ziros, Nicholas, 2018. "Market games as social dilemmas," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 155(C), pages 435-444.
    3. David Glick & C Daniel Myers, 2015. "Learning from others: an experimental test of Brownian motion uncertainty models," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 27(4), pages 588-612, October.
    4. Gehrig, Thomas & Güth, Werner & Leví0nský, René & Popova, Vera, 2010. "On the evolution of professional consulting," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 76(1), pages 113-126, October.
    5. Yoichi Hizen & Kengo Kurosaka, 2021. "Monetary Costs Versus Opportunity Costs in a Voting Experiment," Working Papers SDES-2021-1, Kochi University of Technology, School of Economics and Management, revised Feb 2021.
    6. Lee, Natalie, 2023. "Feigning ignorance for long-term gains," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 138(C), pages 42-71.
    7. Caldieraro, Fabio & Cunha, Marcus, 2022. "Consumers’ response to weak unique selling propositions: Implications for optimal product recommendation strategy," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 39(3), pages 724-744.
    8. Hoffmann, Robert & Chesney, Thomas & Chuah, Swee-Hoon & Kock, Florian & Larner, Jeremy, 2020. "Demonstrability, difficulty and persuasion: An experimental study of advice taking," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 76(C).
    9. Nicolas Jacquemet & Stéphane Luchini & Jason F. Shogren & Adam Zylbersztejn, 2018. "Coordination with communication under oath," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 21(3), pages 627-649, September.
    10. Werner Güth & M. Vittoria Levati & Matteo Ploner, 2008. "On The Social Dimension Of Time And Risk Preferences: An Experimental Study," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 46(2), pages 261-272, April.
    11. Feltovich, Nick & Swierzbinski, Joe, 2011. "The role of strategic uncertainty in games: An experimental study of cheap talk and contracts in the Nash demand game," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 55(4), pages 554-574, May.
    12. Guererk, Oezguer & Rockenbach, Bettina & Wolff, Irenaeus, 2010. "The effects of punishment in dynamic public-good games," MPRA Paper 22097, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    13. Miettinen, Topi, 2013. "Promises and conventions – An approach to pre-play agreements," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 68-84.
    14. McGinn, Kathleen L. & Milkman, Katherine L. & Nöth, Markus, 2012. "Walking the talk in multiparty bargaining: An experimental investigation," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 278-291.
    15. Duffy, John & Feltovich, Nick, 2002. "Do Actions Speak Louder Than Words? An Experimental Comparison of Observation and Cheap Talk," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 1-27, April.
    16. López-Pérez, Raúl, 2009. "The Power of Words: Why Communication fosters Cooperation and Efficiency," Working Papers in Economic Theory 2009/01, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid (Spain), Department of Economic Analysis (Economic Theory and Economic History).
    17. GRANDJEAN, Gilles & MANTOVANI, Marco & MAULEON, Ana & VANNETELBOSCH, Vincent, 2014. "Whom are you talking with ? An experiment on credibility and communication structure," LIDAM Discussion Papers CORE 2014042, Université catholique de Louvain, Center for Operations Research and Econometrics (CORE).
    18. Peeters, Ronald & Vorsatz, Marc & Walzl, Markus, 2008. "Rewards in an experimental sender-receiver game," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 101(2), pages 148-150, November.
    19. Besancenot, Damien & Dubart, Delphine & Vranceanu, Radu, 2013. "The value of lies in an ultimatum game with imperfect information," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 239-247.
    20. Abigail Barr & Anna Hochleitner & Silvia Sonderegger, 2023. "Does increasing inequality threaten social stability? Evidence from the lab," Discussion Papers 2023-13, The Centre for Decision Research and Experimental Economics, School of Economics, University of Nottingham.

    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:sae:jothpo:v:27:y:2015:i:3:p:380-400. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.