{"title":"异质先验的证据披露","authors":"Antonio Jiménez-Martínez, Isabel Melguizo-López","doi":"10.1016/j.mathsocsci.2024.09.006","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>We investigate an interesting type of equilibrium of a game where a collective decision is reached by aggregating the preferred alternatives of a group of Receivers. A Sender that cares about the collective decision must make efforts (not below a normative-minimum) to gather evidence relevant for the Receivers to gauge their preferred alternatives. Research efforts may be unsuccessful, which allows for strategic concealment. Each Receiver cares only about her preferred alternative so that the goal of the Sender is achieved by affecting the beliefs of a single representative Receiver (e.g., pivotal voter). Disagreement between the players about the best alternative is based solely on heterogeneous priors. The type of equilibrium that we study arises when the Sender and the representative Receiver agree based on their priors but disagree based on some evidence. In such situations, while unfavorable evidence is concealed always, both disclosure and concealment of favorable evidence may happen with positive probability. Interestingly, for sufficiently low normative-minimum efforts, there arises a continuum of equilibria in which the Sender discloses favorable evidence with higher probability.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":51118,"journal":{"name":"Mathematical Social Sciences","volume":"132 ","pages":"Pages 69-74"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evidence disclosure with heterogeneous priors\",\"authors\":\"Antonio Jiménez-Martínez, Isabel Melguizo-López\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.mathsocsci.2024.09.006\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>We investigate an interesting type of equilibrium of a game where a collective decision is reached by aggregating the preferred alternatives of a group of Receivers. A Sender that cares about the collective decision must make efforts (not below a normative-minimum) to gather evidence relevant for the Receivers to gauge their preferred alternatives. Research efforts may be unsuccessful, which allows for strategic concealment. Each Receiver cares only about her preferred alternative so that the goal of the Sender is achieved by affecting the beliefs of a single representative Receiver (e.g., pivotal voter). Disagreement between the players about the best alternative is based solely on heterogeneous priors. The type of equilibrium that we study arises when the Sender and the representative Receiver agree based on their priors but disagree based on some evidence. In such situations, while unfavorable evidence is concealed always, both disclosure and concealment of favorable evidence may happen with positive probability. Interestingly, for sufficiently low normative-minimum efforts, there arises a continuum of equilibria in which the Sender discloses favorable evidence with higher probability.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51118,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Mathematical Social Sciences\",\"volume\":\"132 \",\"pages\":\"Pages 69-74\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Mathematical Social Sciences\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"96\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016548962400088X\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"经济学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"ECONOMICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Mathematical Social Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016548962400088X","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
We investigate an interesting type of equilibrium of a game where a collective decision is reached by aggregating the preferred alternatives of a group of Receivers. A Sender that cares about the collective decision must make efforts (not below a normative-minimum) to gather evidence relevant for the Receivers to gauge their preferred alternatives. Research efforts may be unsuccessful, which allows for strategic concealment. Each Receiver cares only about her preferred alternative so that the goal of the Sender is achieved by affecting the beliefs of a single representative Receiver (e.g., pivotal voter). Disagreement between the players about the best alternative is based solely on heterogeneous priors. The type of equilibrium that we study arises when the Sender and the representative Receiver agree based on their priors but disagree based on some evidence. In such situations, while unfavorable evidence is concealed always, both disclosure and concealment of favorable evidence may happen with positive probability. Interestingly, for sufficiently low normative-minimum efforts, there arises a continuum of equilibria in which the Sender discloses favorable evidence with higher probability.
期刊介绍:
The international, interdisciplinary journal Mathematical Social Sciences publishes original research articles, survey papers, short notes and book reviews. The journal emphasizes the unity of mathematical modelling in economics, psychology, political sciences, sociology and other social sciences.
Topics of particular interest include the fundamental aspects of choice, information, and preferences (decision science) and of interaction (game theory and economic theory), the measurement of utility, welfare and inequality, the formal theories of justice and implementation, voting rules, cooperative games, fair division, cost allocation, bargaining, matching, social networks, and evolutionary and other dynamics models.
Papers published by the journal are mathematically rigorous but no bounds, from above or from below, limits their technical level. All mathematical techniques may be used. The articles should be self-contained and readable by social scientists trained in mathematics.