Search for: All records

Abstract In disseminating information, policymakers face a choice between broadcasting to everyone and informing a small number of “seeds” who then spread the message. While broadcasting maximises the initial reach of messages, we offer theoretical and experimental evidence that it need not be the best strategy. In a field experiment during the 2016 Indian demonetisation, we delivered policy information, varying three dimensions of the delivery method at the village level: initial reach (broadcasting versus seeding); whether or not we induced common knowledge of who was initially informed; and number of facts delivered. We measured three outcomes: the volume of conversations about demonetisation, knowledge of demonetisation rules, and choice quality in a strongly incentivised policy-dependent decision. On all three outcomes, under common knowledge, seeding dominates broadcasting; moreover, adding common knowledge makes seeding more effective but broadcasting less so. We interpret our results via a model of image concerns deterring engagement in social learning, and we support this interpretation with evidence on differential behaviour across ability categories. 

Abstract Agents learn about a changing state using private signals and their neighbours’ past estimates of the state. We present a model in which Bayesian agents in equilibrium use neighbours’ estimates simply by taking weighted sums with time-invariant weights. The dynamics thus parallel those of the tractable DeGroot model of learning in networks, but arise as an equilibrium outcome rather than a behavioural assumption. We examine whether information aggregation is nearly optimal as neighbourhoods grow large. A key condition for this is signal diversity: each individual’s neighbours have private signals that not only contain independent information, but also have sufficiently different distributions. Without signal diversity—e.g. if private signals are i.i.d.—learning is suboptimal in all networks and highly inefficient in some. Turning to social influence, we find it is much more sensitive to one’s signal quality than to one’s number of neighbours, in contrast to standard models with exogenous updating rules.