George Loewenstein, Cass R. Sunstein, and Russell Golman, “Disclosure: Psychology Changes Everything.” Annual Review of Economics 6: 391–419, 2014 (pdf).
• A good deal of information is disclosed through government mandate, and much of this information would not be disclosed in the absence of the mandate. The information would not be disclosed perhaps because it would not benefit sellers, or because information has a public good aspect that lowers the incentive for any single private entity to produce and disseminate the information.
• Mandated disclosures involve some subtle costs, such as the time they take for consumers to read them, the subsequent loss of attention to other pieces of information, and even the emotional costs associated with graphic warnings, for instance.
• Mandated disclosures tend to occur when there are significant gaps in the information known to sellers and that known to buyers, and when the informational disadvantage threatens the interests of consumers. Disclosure also can be used to help consumers overcome their own departures from rational decision making: perhaps “behavioral market failures” provide a rationale for policies to limit internalities.
• Some information – such as a physician’s assertion that a certain treatment is needed – is not verifiable, and hence problems connected with this information cannot be solved simply through disclosure. But physicians might be required to disclose their interests (such as receiving royalties from the recommended treatment) if those interests are not fully aligned with patient interests.
• Disclosure of conflicting incentives does not fix every problem. The disclosing agent might view the disclosure as allowing for carte blanche, for any sort of self-interested advice. The recipient (principal) might feel compelled to follow the advice, to avoid the inference that the advice giver is viewed as untrustworthy.
• The technology of disclosure – who makes it, when, and what effort is made to render it noticeable – helps to determine its impact.
• Sellers have little reason to put effort into those dimensions of a good that potential consumers do not pay attention to. A producer of a less deadly cigarette might not want to disclose its relative safety, because to do so might make the fatal consequences of smoking more salient.
• Warning labels don’t seem to accomplish much; more generally, see Omri Ben-Shahar and Carl E. Schneider, More Than You Wanted to Know: The Failure of Mandated Disclosure, Princeton U. P., 2014.
• The absence of information should best be met, perhaps, by assuming the worst, as otherwise the information would have been provided. But people often do not draw this inference, even when it is rational to do so. This presents a potential rationale for mandating disclosure.
• Sometimes we want to be ignorant, sometimes information can lower our utility – a tendency that motivated the May, 2015 on-air radio killing of a young rabbit in Denmark.
• The tell-tale heart effect: mandated disclosure might cause producers to up their game, even if no consumers pay attention. Revelation of calorie counts might lead to lower calorie offerings, even if consumers do not respond to the calorie information. Maybe producers suffer from a spotlight effect, a belief that people are observing their disclosures more closely than really is the case.
• Simplified information, like restaurant health grades, is often more valuable to consumers than is more finely grained information.
• Comparative information – how does my energy use stack up against my neighbors? – might be more influential on energy usage than other types of usage disclosures. But the potential for perverse outcomes exists, too.
• Personal policies for information disclosure or non-disclosure on social media, for example, do not seem to be fully rational.
No comments:
Post a Comment