We study the competitive provision and endogenous acquisition of political information. Our main result identifies a natural equilibrium channel through which a more competitive market decreases the efficiency of policy outcomes. A critical insight we put forward is that competition among information providers leads to informational specialization: firms provide relatively less information on issues that are of common interest and relatively more information on issues on which agents' preferences are heterogeneous. This enables agents to acquire information about different aspects of the policy, specifically, those that are particularly important to them. This leads to an increase in social disagreement, which has negative welfare implications. We establish that, in large enough societies, competition makes every agent worse off by decreasing the utility that she derives from the policy outcome. Furthermore, we show that this decline cannot be compensated by the decrease in prices resulting from competition.

We experimentally document persistence of suboptimal behavior despite ample opportunities to learn from feedback in a canonical updating problem where people suffer from base-rate neglect. Our results provide insights on the mechanisms hindering learning from feedback. Importantly, our results suggest mistakes are more likely to be persistent when they are driven by incorrect mental models that miss or misrepresent important aspects of the environment. Such models induce confidence in initial answers, limiting engagement with and learning from feedback. We substantiate these insights in an alternative scenario where individuals involved in a voting problem overlook the importance of being pivotal.

We provide evidence for a bias that we call “representative signal distortion” (RSD), which is particularly relevant to settings of statistical discrimination. Experimental subjects distort their evaluation of new evidence on individual group members and interpret such information to be more representative of the group to which the individual belongs (relative to a reference group) than it really is. This produces a discriminatory gap in the evaluation of members of the two groups. Because it is driven by representativeness, the bias (and the discriminatory gap) disappears when subjects are prevented from contrasting different groups; because it is a bias in the interpretation of information, it disappears when subjects receive information before learning of the individual’s group. We show that this bias can be easily estimated from appropriately constructed data sets and can be distinguished from previously documented inferential biases in the literature. Importantly, we document how removing the bias produces a kind of free lunch in reducing discrimination, making it possible to significantly reduce discrimination without lowering accuracy of inferences.

More than half a century after the first experiment on the finitely repeated prisoner’s dilemma, evidence on whether cooperation decreases with experience—as suggested by backward induction—remains inconclusive. This article provides a meta-analysis of prior experimental research and reports the results of a new experiment to elucidate how cooperation varies with the environment in this canonical game. We describe forces that affect initial play (formation of cooperation) and unraveling (breakdown of cooperation). First, contrary to the backward induction prediction, the parameters of the repeated game have a significant effect on initial cooperation. We identify how these parameters impact the value of cooperation—as captured by the size of the basin of attraction of always defect—to account for an important part of this effect. Second, despite these initial differences, the evolution of behavior is consistent with the unraveling logic of backward induction for all parameter combinations. Importantly, despite the seemingly contradictory results across studies, this article establishes a systematic pattern of behavior: subjects converge to use threshold strategies that conditionally cooperate until a threshold round; conditional on establishing cooperation, the first defection round moves earlier with experience. Simulation results generated from a learning model estimated at the subject level provide insights into the long-term dynamics and the forces that slow down the unraveling of cooperation.

This paper uses a laboratory experiment to study beliefs and their relationship to action and strategy choices in finitely and indefinitely repeated prisoners’ dilemma games. We find subjects’ elicited beliefs about the other player’s action are generally accurate despite some systematic deviations, and anticipate the evolution of behavior differently between the finite and indefinite games. We also use the elicited beliefs over actions to recover beliefs over supergame strategies played by the other player. We find these beliefs over strategies correctly capture the different classes of strategies played in each game, vary substantially across subjects, and rationalize their strategies.