IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/nbr/nberwo/26109.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Using Models to Persuade

Author

Listed:
  • Joshua Schwartzstein
  • Adi Sunderam

Abstract

We present a framework for analyzing “model persuasion.” Persuaders influence receivers’ beliefs by proposing models (likelihood functions) that specify how to organize past data (e.g., on investment performance) to make predictions (e.g., about future returns). Receivers are assumed to find models more compelling when they better explain the data, fixing receivers’ prior beliefs over states of the world. Model persuaders face a key tradeoff: models that better fit the data given receivers’ prior beliefs induce less movement in receivers’ beliefs. This tradeoff means that a receiver exposed to the true model can be most misled by persuasion when that model fits poorly—for instance when there is a lot of data that exhibits randomness. In such cases, a wrong model often wins because it provides a better fit. Similarly, competition between persuaders tends to neutralize the data because it pushes towards models that provide overly good fits and therefore do not move receivers’ beliefs much. The fit-movement tradeoff depends on receiver characteristics, so with multiple receivers a persuader is more effective when he can send tailored, private messages. We illustrate with examples from finance, business, politics, and law.

Suggested Citation

  • Joshua Schwartzstein & Adi Sunderam, 2019. "Using Models to Persuade," NBER Working Papers 26109, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  • Handle: RePEc:nbr:nberwo:26109
    Note: AP CF IO
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.nber.org/papers/w26109.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Robert J. Shiller, 2015. "Irrational Exuberance," Economics Books, Princeton University Press, edition 3, number 10421.
    2. Ignacio Esponda & Demian Pouzo, 2016. "Berk–Nash Equilibrium: A Framework for Modeling Agents With Misspecified Models," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 84, pages 1093-1130, May.
    3. Chalmers, John & Reuter, Jonathan, 2020. "Is conflicted investment advice better than no advice?," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 138(2), pages 366-387.
    4. Gary S. Becker & Kevin M. Murphy, 1993. "A Simple Theory of Advertising as a Good or Bad," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 108(4), pages 941-964.
    5. Benabou, Roland & Falk, Armin & Tirole, Jean, 2018. "Narratives, Imperatives, and Moral Reasoning," IZA Discussion Papers 11665, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    6. Phillips, Blake & Pukthuanthong, Kantura & Rau, P. Raghavendra, 2016. "Past Performance May Be an Illusion: Performance, Flows, and Fees in Mutual Funds," Critical Finance Review, now publishers, vol. 5(2), pages 351-398, December.
    7. Erik Eyster & Michele Piccione, 2013. "An Approach to Asset Pricing Under Incomplete and Diverse Perceptions," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 81(4), pages 1483-1506, July.
    8. Peter M. DeMarzo & Dimitri Vayanos & Jeffrey Zwiebel, 2003. "Persuasion Bias, Social Influence, and Unidimensional Opinions," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 118(3), pages 909-968.
    9. Paul Heidhues & Botond Kőszegi & Philipp Strack, 2018. "Unrealistic Expectations and Misguided Learning," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 86(4), pages 1159-1214, July.
    10. Mark L. Egan & Gregor Matvos & Amit Seru, 2018. "Arbitration with Uninformed Consumers," NBER Working Papers 25150, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    11. Paul R. Milgrom, 1981. "Good News and Bad News: Representation Theorems and Applications," Bell Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 12(2), pages 380-391, Autumn.
    12. Eliaz, Kfir & Spiegler, Ran & Thysen, Heidi C., 2021. "Strategic interpretations," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 192(C).
    13. Utpal Bhattacharya & Andreas Hackethal & Simon Kaesler & Benjamin Loos & Steffen Meyer, 2012. "Is Unbiased Financial Advice to Retail Investors Sufficient? Answers from a Large Field Study," The Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 25(4), pages 975-1032.
    14. George A. Akerlof & Robert J. Shiller, 2015. "Phishing for Phools: The Economics of Manipulation and Deception," Economics Books, Princeton University Press, edition 1, number 10534.
    15. Chater, Nick & Loewenstein, George, 2016. "The under-appreciated drive for sense-making," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 126(PB), pages 137-154.
    16. Cheung, Yin-Wong & Chinn, Menzie David, 2001. "Currency traders and exchange rate dynamics: a survey of the US market," Journal of International Money and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 20(4), pages 439-471, August.
    17. Ignacio Esponda & Demian Pouzo, 2016. "Berk–Nash Equilibrium: A Framework for Modeling Agents With Misspecified Models," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 84, pages 1093-1130, May.
    18. Taylor, Mark P. & Allen, Helen, 1992. "The use of technical analysis in the foreign exchange market," Journal of International Money and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 11(3), pages 304-314, June.
    19. Jonathan J. Koehler & Molly Mercer, 2009. "Selection Neglect in Mutual Fund Advertisements," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 55(7), pages 1107-1121, July.
    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. Philippe Jehiel, 2022. "Analogy-Based Expectation Equilibrium and Related Concepts:Theory, Applications, and Beyond," Working Papers halshs-03735680, HAL.
    2. Spiegler, Ran, 2021. "Modeling players with random “data access”," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 198(C).
    3. Mira Frick & Ryota Iijima & Yuhta Ishii, 2020. "Misinterpreting Others and the Fragility of Social Learning," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 88(6), pages 2281-2328, November.
    4. Levy, Gilat & Razin, Ronny, 2022. "Combining forecasts in the presence of ambiguity over correlation structures," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 199(C).
    5. John Y. Campbell, 2016. "Restoring Rational Choice: The Challenge of Consumer Financial Regulation," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 106(5), pages 1-30, May.
    6. V. Bhaskar & Caroline Thomas, 2019. "The Culture of Overconfidence," American Economic Review: Insights, American Economic Association, vol. 1(1), pages 95-110, June.
    7. Jeanne Hagenbach & Frédéric Koessler, 2019. "Partial Language Competence," Working Papers hal-03393108, HAL.
    8. Glazer, Jacob & Rubinstein, Ariel, 2024. "Making predictions based on data: Holistic and atomistic procedures," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 216(C).
    9. Bowen, T. Renee & Galperti, Simone & Dmitriev, Danil, 2021. "Learning from Shared News: When Abundant Information Leads to Belief Polarization," CEPR Discussion Papers 15789, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    10. repec:spo:wpecon:info:hdl:2441/3b2230a4419v9ojcpu27tsdrtb is not listed on IDEAS
    11. Kai Barron & Tilman Fries, 2023. "Narrative Persuasion," Rationality and Competition Discussion Paper Series 469, CRC TRR 190 Rationality and Competition.
    12. Gagnon-Bartsch, Tristan & Bushong, Benjamin, 2022. "Learning with misattribution of reference dependence," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 203(C).
    13. Mira Frick & Ryota Iijima & Yuhta Ishii, 2018. "Dispersed Behavior and Perceptions in Assortative Societies," Cowles Foundation Discussion Papers 2128, Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics, Yale University.
    14. Ran Spiegler, 2017. "“Data Monkeys”: A Procedural Model of Extrapolation from Partial Statistics," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 84(4), pages 1818-1841.
    15. J. Aislinn Bohren & Daniel N. Hauser, 2023. "Behavioral Foundations of Model Misspecification," PIER Working Paper Archive 23-007, Penn Institute for Economic Research, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania.
    16. repec:hal:spmain:info:hdl:2441/3b2230a4419v9ojcpu27tsdrtb is not listed on IDEAS
    17. Steiner, Jakub & Netzer, Nick & Robson, Arthur & Kocourek, Pavel, 2021. "Endogenous Risk Attitudes," CEPR Discussion Papers 16190, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    18. Ignacio Esponda & Emanuel Vespa & Sevgi Yuksel, 2024. "Mental Models and Learning: The Case of Base-Rate Neglect," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 114(3), pages 752-782, March.
    19. Kfir Eliaz & Ran Spiegler, 2020. "A Model of Competing Narratives," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 110(12), pages 3786-3816, December.
    20. Hestermann, Nina & Le Yaouanq, Yves, 2018. "It\'s not my Fault! Self-Confidence and Experimentation," Rationality and Competition Discussion Paper Series 124, CRC TRR 190 Rationality and Competition.
    21. repec:spo:wpmain:info:hdl:2441/3b2230a4419v9ojcpu27tsdrtb is not listed on IDEAS
    22. Giampaolo Bonomi, 2023. "The Disagreement Dividend," Papers 2308.06607, arXiv.org, revised Jul 2024.
    23. Aislinn Bohren & Daniel Hauser, 2018. "Social Learning with Model Misspeciification: A Framework and a Robustness Result," PIER Working Paper Archive 18-017, Penn Institute for Economic Research, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania, revised 01 Jul 2018.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • G11 - Financial Economics - - General Financial Markets - - - Portfolio Choice; Investment Decisions
    • G4 - Financial Economics - - Behavioral Finance
    • L15 - Industrial Organization - - Market Structure, Firm Strategy, and Market Performance - - - Information and Product Quality
    • M3 - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting; Personnel Economics - - Marketing and Advertising

    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:nbr:nberwo:26109. 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: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/nberrus.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.