IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/tin/wpaper/20180070.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Markets Assessing Decision Makers and Decision Makers Impressing Markets: a Lab Experiment

Author

Listed:
  • Sander Renes

    (Erasmus University Rotterdam)

  • Bauke (B.) Visser

    (Erasmus University Rotterdam)

Abstract

We experimentally investigate (i) whether markets accurately assess the ability of decision makers when these decision makers benefit from positive assessments and (ii) how decision makers use a costly decision and cheap-talk statements to impress markets. We focus on committees of decision makers to use their conversations as a source of information about their beliefs on the relationship between committee actions and assessments. We find that reputation concerns greatly reduce the amount of useful information markets can rely on. Markets realize this and make assessments less dependent on actual decisions and statements when assessments matter to decision makers. Within treatments, markets use the available information about ability quite efficiently. Reputation concerns make the modal cheap-talk strategy uninformative about ability. In a treatment without statements, committees turn to the decision on the project, a costly signal, to impress. Thus, distorted decisions are more frequent in the absence of the cheap-talk channel.

Suggested Citation

  • Sander Renes & Bauke (B.) Visser, 2018. "Markets Assessing Decision Makers and Decision Makers Impressing Markets: a Lab Experiment," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 18-070/VII, Tinbergen Institute, revised 03 May 2019.
  • Handle: RePEc:tin:wpaper:20180070
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://papers.tinbergen.nl/18070.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Sebastian Fehrler & Moritz Janas, 2021. "Delegation to a Group," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(6), pages 3714-3743, June.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    reputation concerns; market assessments; committees; cheaptalk; united front; experiment;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C91 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Individual Behavior
    • D71 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making - - - Social Choice; Clubs; Committees; Associations
    • D83 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Search; Learning; Information and Knowledge; Communication; Belief; Unawareness
    • D84 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Expectations; Speculations
    • L14 - Industrial Organization - - Market Structure, Firm Strategy, and Market Performance - - - Transactional Relationships; Contracts and Reputation

    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:tin:wpaper:20180070. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Tinbergen Office +31 (0)10-4088900 (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/tinbenl.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.