Informational Herding, Optimal Experimentation, and Contrarianism

Author(s):  
Lones Smith ◽  
Peter Norman Sørensen ◽  
Jianrong Tian

Abstract In the standard herding model, privately informed individuals sequentially see prior actions and then act. An identical action herd eventually starts and public beliefs tend to “cascade sets” where social learning stops. What behaviour is socially efficient when actions ignore informational externalities? We characterize the outcome that maximizes the discounted sum of utilities. Our four key findings are: (a) Cascade sets shrink but do not vanish, and herding should occur but less readily as greater weight is attached to posterity. (b) An optimal mechanism rewards individuals mimicked by their successor. (c) Cascades cannot start after period one under a signal logconcavity condition. (d) Given this condition, efficient behaviour is contrarian, leaning against the myopically more popular actions in every period. We make two technical contributions: As value functions with learning are not smooth, we use monotone comparative statics under uncertainty to deduce optimal dynamic behaviour.We also adapt dynamic pivot mechanisms to Bayesian learning.

2010 ◽  
Vol 41 (2) ◽  
pp. 177-193 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carol Horton Tremblay ◽  
Victor J. Tremblay

2006 ◽  
Vol 50 (1) ◽  
pp. 214-231 ◽  
Author(s):  
Scott Ashworth ◽  
Ethan Bueno de Mesquita

2020 ◽  
Vol 189 ◽  
pp. 105082
Author(s):  
Takashi Kunimoto ◽  
Takuro Yamashita

2020 ◽  
Vol 15 (3) ◽  
pp. 1221-1278 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mariagiovanna Baccara ◽  
SangMok Lee ◽  
Leeat Yariv

We study a dynamic matching environment where individuals arrive sequentially. There is a trade‐off between waiting for a thicker market, allowing for higher‐quality matches, and minimizing agents' waiting costs. The optimal mechanism cumulates a stock of incongruent pairs up to a threshold and matches all others in an assortative fashion instantaneously. In discretionary settings, a similar protocol ensues in equilibrium, but expected queues are inefficiently long. We quantify the welfare gain from centralization, which can be substantial, even for low waiting costs. We also evaluate welfare improvements generated by alternative priority protocols.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document