IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/arx/papers/2512.10125.html

Motivated Reasoning and Information Aggregation

Author

Listed:
  • Avidit Acharya
  • Kyungtae Park
  • Tomer Zaidman

Abstract

If agents engage in motivated reasoning, how does that affect the aggregation of information in society? We study the effects of motivated reasoning in two canonical settings - the Condorcet jury theorem (CJT), and the sequential social learning model (SLM). We define a notion of motivated reasoning that applies to these and a broader class of other settings, and contrast it to other approaches in the literature. We show for the CJT that information aggregates in the large electorate limit even with motivated reasoning. When signal quality differs across states, increasing motivation improves welfare in the state with the more informative signal and worsens it in the other state. In the SLM, motivated reasoning improves information aggregation up to a point; but if agents place too little weight on truth-seeking, this can lead to worse aggregation relative to the fully Bayesian benchmark.

Suggested Citation

  • Avidit Acharya & Kyungtae Park & Tomer Zaidman, 2025. "Motivated Reasoning and Information Aggregation," Papers 2512.10125, arXiv.org.
  • Handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2512.10125
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://arxiv.org/pdf/2512.10125
    File Function: Latest version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Elchanan Mossel & Manuel Mueller‐Frank & Allan Sly & Omer Tamuz, 2020. "Social Learning Equilibria," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 88(3), pages 1235-1267, May.
    2. William Minozzi, 2013. "Endogenous Beliefs in Models of Politics," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 57(3), pages 566-581, July.
    3. McLennan, Andrew, 1998. "Consequences of the Condorcet Jury Theorem for Beneficial Information Aggregation by Rational Agents," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 92(2), pages 413-418, June.
    4. James N. Druckman & Mary C. McGrath, 2019. "The evidence for motivated reasoning in climate change preference formation," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 9(2), pages 111-119, February.
    5. Akerlof, George A & Dickens, William T, 1982. "The Economic Consequences of Cognitive Dissonance," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 72(3), pages 307-319, June.
    6. Andrew T. Little, 2019. "The Distortion of Related Beliefs," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 63(3), pages 675-689, July.
    7. Timothy Feddersen & Wolfgang Pesendorfer, 1997. "Voting Behavior and Information Aggregation in Elections with Private Information," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 65(5), pages 1029-1058, September.
    8. Dinah Rosenberg & Nicolas Vieille, 2019. "On the Efficiency of Social Learning," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 87(6), pages 2141-2168, November.
    9. Matthew Rabin & Joel L. Schrag, 1999. "First Impressions Matter: A Model of Confirmatory Bias," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 114(1), pages 37-82.
    10. Navin Kartik & SangMok Lee & Tianhao Liu & Daniel Rappoport, 2024. "Beyond Unbounded Beliefs: How Preferences and Information Interplay in Social Learning," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 92(4), pages 1033-1062, July.
    11. David K Levine, 2024. "Method of Moments and Maximum Likelihood in the Laboratory," Levine's Working Paper Archive 11694000000000208, David K. Levine.
    12. Bracha, Anat & Brown, Donald J., 2012. "Affective decision making: A theory of optimism bias," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 75(1), pages 67-80.
    13. Lones Smith & Peter Sorensen, 2000. "Pathological Outcomes of Observational Learning," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 68(2), pages 371-398, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Au, Pak Hung, 2016. "Price reaction and disagreement over public signal," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 81-106.
    2. Hiroto Sato & Ryo Shirakawa, 2025. "Managing Learning Structures," Papers 2512.20001, arXiv.org.
    3. Bobba, Matteo & Frisancho, Veronica, 2022. "Self-perceptions about academic achievement: Evidence from Mexico City," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 231(1), pages 58-73.
    4. Guglielmo Zappalà, 2023. "Drought Exposure and Accuracy: Motivated Reasoning in Climate Change Beliefs," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 85(3), pages 649-672, August.
    5. Dhillon, Amrita & Kotsialou, Grammateia & Xefteris, Dimitris, 2021. "Information Aggregation with Delegation of Votes," SocArXiv ubk7p, Center for Open Science.
    6. Emmanuel PETIT, 2010. "The role of regret in the persistence of anomalies in financial markets (In French)," Cahiers du GREThA (2007-2019) 2010-07, Groupe de Recherche en Economie Théorique et Appliquée (GREThA).
    7. de Clippel, Geoffroy & Eliaz, Kfir, 2015. "Premise-based versus outcome-based information aggregation," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 34-42.
    8. Cesar Martinelli, 2011. "Ignorance and Naivete in Large Elections," Working Papers 1107, Centro de Investigacion Economica, ITAM.
    9. Houy, Nicolas & Ménager, Lucie, 2008. "Communication, consensus and order. Who wants to speak first?," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 143(1), pages 140-152, November.
    10. Lackner, Teresa & Fierro, Luca E. & Mellacher, Patrick, 2025. "Opinion dynamics meet agent-based climate economics: An integrated analysis of carbon taxation," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 229(C).
    11. Irem Bozbay, 2019. "Truth-tracking judgment aggregation over interconnected issues," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 53(2), pages 337-370, August.
    12. Jerome Mathis, 2006. "Deliberation with Partially Verifiable Information," Thema Working Papers 2006-03, THEMA (Théorie Economique, Modélisation et Applications), CY Cergy-Paris University, ESSEC and CNRS.
    13. Antony Millner & Hélène Ollivier, 2016. "Beliefs, Politics, and Environmental Policy," Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 10(2), pages 226-244.
    14. Paolo Balduzzi & Clara Graziano & Annalisa Luporini, 2014. "Voting in small committees," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 111(1), pages 69-95, February.
    15. J. Goertz, 2014. "Inefficient committees: small elections with three alternatives," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 43(2), pages 357-375, August.
    16. McMurray, Joseph, 2022. "Polarization and pandering in common-interest elections," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 133(C), pages 150-161.
    17. Alexander Lundberg, 2020. "The importance of expertise in group decisions," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 55(3), pages 495-521, October.
    18. Kai Barron, 2021. "Belief updating: does the ‘good-news, bad-news’ asymmetry extend to purely financial domains?," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 24(1), pages 31-58, March.
    19. Daron Acemoglu & Munther A. Dahleh & Ilan Lobel & Asuman Ozdaglar, 2011. "Bayesian Learning in Social Networks," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 78(4), pages 1201-1236.
    20. Gratton, Gabriele, 2014. "Pandering and electoral competition," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 163-179.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2512.10125. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: arXiv administrators (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://arxiv.org/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.