Beyond Value: On the Role of Symmetry in Demand for Information

References

• Aghion P, Tirole J (1997) Formal and real authority in organizations. J. Political Econom. 105(1):1–29.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Agranov M, Ortoleva P (2017) Stochastic choice and preferences for randomization. J. Political Econom. 125(1):40–68.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Agranov M, Healy PJ, Nielsen K (2023) Stable randomisation. Econom. J. 133(655):2553–2579.Google Scholar
• Aina C, Amelio A, Brütt K (2023) Contingent belief updating. ECONtribute Discussion Paper No. 263, University of Bonn and University of Cologne, Bonn, Germany. Google Scholar
• Ambuehl S, Li S (2018) Belief updating and the demand for information. Games Econom. Behav. 109:21–39.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Andreoni J (1995) Cooperation in public-goods experiments: Kindness or confusion? Amer. Econom. Rev. 85(4):891–904.Google Scholar
• Bertamini M, Rampone G (2020) The study of symmetry in empirical aesthetics. Nadal M, Vartanian O, eds. The Oxford Handbook of Empirical Aesthetics (Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bolton P, Dewatripont M (1994) The firm as a communication network. Quart. J. Econom. 109(4):809–839.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Brandts J, Charness G (2000) Hot vs. cold: Sequential responses and preference stability in experimental games. Experiment. Econom. 2(3):227–238.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Brandts J, Charness G (2011) The strategy versus the direct-response method: A first survey of experimental comparisons. Experiment. Econom. 14(3):375–398.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Charness G, Dave C (2017) Confirmation bias with motivated beliefs. Games Econom. Behav. 104:1–23.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Charness G, Oprea R, Yuksel S (2021) How do people choose between biased information sources? Evidence from a laboratory experiment. J. Eur. Econom. Assoc. 19(3):1656–1691.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cialdini RB (1984) Influence: The New Psychology of Modern Persuasion (William Morrow, New York).Google Scholar
• DellaVigna S, Kaplan E (2007) The Fox News effect: Media bias and voting. Quart. J. Econom. 122(3):1187–1234.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dessein W, Galeotti A, Santos T (2016) Rational inattention and organizational focus. Amer. Econom. Rev. 106(6):1522–1536.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Eliaz K, Schotter A (2007) Experimental testing of intrinsic preferences for noninstrumental information. Amer. Econom. Rev. 97(2):166–169.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Eliaz K, Schotter A (2010) Paying for confidence: An experimental study of the demand for non-instrumental information. Games Econom. Behav. 70(2):304–324.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Enke B, Shubatt C (2023) Quantifying lottery choice complexity. NBER Working Paper No. 31677, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
• Enke B, Graeber T, Oprea R (2023) Complexity and hyperbolic discounting. NBER Working Paper No. 31047, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
• Enquist M, Arak A (1994) Symmetry, beauty and evolution. Nature 372(6502):169–172.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Falk A, Zimmermann F (2016) Beliefs and utility: Experimental evidence on preferences for information. CESifo Working Paper Series No. 6061, CESifo, Munich, Germany.Google Scholar
• Falk A, Zimmermann F (2017) Consistency as a signal of skills. Management Sci. 63(7):2197–2210.Link, Google Scholar
• Fischbacher U (2007) Z-Tree: Zurich toolbox for ready-made economic experiments. Experiment. Econom. 10(2):171–178.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Golman R, Loewenstein G, Molnar A, Saccardo S (2022) The demand for, and avoidance of, information. Management Sci. 68(9):6454–6476.Link, Google Scholar
• Guan M (2024) Choosing between information bundles. Doctoral dissertation, University of California Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, CA.Google Scholar
• Guan M, Oprea R, Yuksel S (2025) Beyond instrumental value: How complexity shapes information demand. Working paper, Pennsylvania State University, University Park.Google Scholar
• Harris M, Raviv A (2008) A theory of board control and size. Rev. Financial Stud. 21(4):1797–1832.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hey JD, Orme C (1994) Investigating generalizations of expected utility theory using experimental data. Econometrica 62(6):1291–1326.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Holmström B, Roberts J (1998) The boundaries of the firm revisited. J. Econom. Perspect. 12(4):73–94.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hossain T, Okui R (2013) The binarized scoring rule. Rev. Econom. Stud. 80(3):984–1001.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Huck S, Szech N, Wenner LM (2015) More effort with less pay: On information avoidance, belief design and performance. Discussion Papers, Research Unit: Economics of Change SP II 2015-304, WZB Berlin Social Science Center, Berlin.Google Scholar
• Jones M, Sugden R (2001) Positive confirmation bias in the acquisition of information. Theory Decision 50(1):59–99.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Liang Y (2024) Learning from unknown information sources. Management Sci. 71(5):3873–3890.Link, Google Scholar
• Llorente-Saguer A, Oliveros S, Zultan R (2024) Beyond value: On the role of superficial characteristics in demand for information. CEPR Discussion Paper No. 18743, CEPR Press, Paris, London.Google Scholar
• Loomes G (2005) Modelling the stochastic component of behaviour in experiments: Some issues for the interpretation of data. Experiment. Econom. 8(4):301–323.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Masatlioglu Y, Orhun Y, Raymond C (2023) Intrinsic preferences for information and skewness. Amer. Econom. Rev. 113(10):2615–2644.Crossref, Google Scholar
• McGranaghan C, Nielsen K, O’Donoghue T, Somerville J, Sprenger CD (2024) Distinguishing common ratio preferences from common ratio effects using paired valuation tasks. Amer. Econom. Rev. 114(2):307–347.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Neyman J, Sharpe Pearson E (1933) On the problem of the most efficient tests of statistical hypotheses. Philos. Trans. Roy. Soc. London. Ser. A 231(694–706):289–337.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Nielsen K (2020) Preferences for the resolution of uncertainty and the timing of information. J. Econom. Theory 189:105090.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Nunnari S, Montanari G (2025) Audi alteram partem: An experiment on selective exposure to information. J. Econom. Sci. Assoc. 11(1):139–150.Google Scholar
• Oprea R (2024) Decisions under risk are decisions under complexity. Amer. Econom. Rev. 231(694–706):289–337.Google Scholar
• Von Gaudecker H-M, Van Soest A, Wengström E (2011) Heterogeneity in risky choice behavior in a broad population. Amer. Econom. Rev. 101(2):664–694.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wilson A, Vespa E (2018) Paired-uniform scoring: Implementing a binarized scoring rule with non-mathematical language. Working paper, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh.Google Scholar
• Zimmermann F (2014) Clumped or piecewise? Evidence on preferences for information. Management Sci. 61(4):740–753.Link, Google Scholar