Saddle Point

Engine · Chapter 4, Signals, Disclosure, and Persuasion

Persuasion by design

What can a committed test-designer make a sceptical audience believe?

The situation

30
50 acts when its posterior reaches θ

The test

The book's scenario

How often the receiver acts

≈ 0.6000

against with no test and under full disclosure. The sender's ceiling, the concave closure at the prior, is .

What the test does

The testpass of good cases, of bad ones
A passprobability , posterior , receiver acts
A failprobability , posterior , receiver does not act
Receiver's expected payoff (no test: ; full disclosure: )

D The book certifies: pass of bad cases, action rate against under full disclosure, receiver's payoff against . Agreement, exactly.

00.5100.250.50.751the receiver's belief that the state is goodprior 3/10pass → 1/2fail → 0
the sender's payoff at each posterior: 1 once the receiver's belief reaches θ = 1/2, 0 below · its concave closure, the most a test can deliver at each prior · the prior, split by the test into two posteriors; the sender's value is the height of the chord above the prior. The optimal test puts one posterior exactly at θ and the other at 0.
The arithmetic

The receiver's payoff from acting at belief is , zero exactly at ; the optimal test leaves it with nothing because every pass lands on that line. Optimal share of bad cases passed: .

The model it runs

Model S1 · p. 168

How much action can a designed test produce, and at whose expense?

1Decision-makers
sender (designs the test) and receiver (acts)
2Time
the test is chosen before the state is realised; then the result is seen and the receiver acts
3Information
endogenous: the sender's choice of experiment (field 6) determines what the receiver observes
4Commitment
the sender commits to the test and cannot alter or hide its result
5Payoffs
sender: if the receiver acts; receiver: as in Definition 4.1 (p. 168)
6Strategies
binary tests (sufficient here); the receiver's rule is fixed by its threshold

Analysis contract

(i) concept
sender-optimal experiment against a best-responding receiver (commitment to an information policy)
(ii) deviations
all experiments: by Theorem 4.2 (p. 168) it suffices to consider distributions of posteriors
(iii) beliefs
Bayes' rule from the common prior
(iv) selection
the indifferent receiver acts (sender-favourable)
(v) attainment
attained; exact; checked against enumeration of two-posterior splits