IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/tse/wpaper/131013.html

Contrarian Motives in Social Learning

Author

Listed:
  • Ivanik, Vasilii
  • Lukyanov, Georgy

Abstract

We study sequential social learning with endogenous information acquisition when agents have a taste for nonconformity. Each agent observes predecessors’ actions, decides whether to acquire a private signal (and how precise it should be), and then chooses between two actions. Payoffs value correctness and include a bonus for taking the less popular action among pre-decessors; because this bonus depends only on observed popularity, the equilibrium analysis avoids fixed points in anticipated popularity and preserves standard Bayesian updating. In a Gaussian–quadratic setting, optimal actions follow posterior thresholds that tilt against the majority, and we solve the precision choice problem. Whenever the no-signal decision aligns with the observed majority, stronger contrarian motives weakly raise the value of information and expand the set of histories in which agents invest. We provide compact comparative statics for thresholds, action probabilities, and the precision argmax, a local welfare-and-information treatment, and applications to scientific priority races, cultural diffusion, and online platforms.

Suggested Citation

  • Ivanik, Vasilii & Lukyanov, Georgy, 2025. "Contrarian Motives in Social Learning," TSE Working Papers 25-1679, Toulouse School of Economics (TSE).
  • Handle: RePEc:tse:wpaper:131013
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.tse-fr.eu/sites/default/files/TSE/documents/doc/wp/2025/wp_tse_1679.pdf
    File Function: Full Text
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Russell Golman & David Hagmann & George Loewenstein, 2017. "Information Avoidance," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 55(1), pages 96-135, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Georgy Lukyanov & Anna Vlasova & Maria Ziskelevich, 2025. "Risky Advice and Reputational Bias," Papers 2508.19707, arXiv.org, revised Sep 2025.

    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. Romain Espinosa & Thibaut Arpinon & Paco Maginot & Sébastien Demange & Florimond Peureux, 2024. "Removing barriers to plant-based diets: assisting doctors with vegan patients," Post-Print hal-04479493, HAL.
    2. Gabriel Martinez & Nicholas H. Tenev, 2020. "Optimal Echo Chambers," Papers 2010.01249, arXiv.org, revised Jun 2025.
    3. Robin Maximilian Stetzka & Stefan Winter, 2023. "How rational is gambling?," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 37(4), pages 1432-1488, September.
    4. Lisa Bruttel & Werner Güth & Ralph Hertwig & Andreas Orland, 2020. "Do people harness deliberate ignorance to avoid envy and its detrimental effects?," CEPA Discussion Papers 17, Center for Economic Policy Analysis.
    5. Kops, Christopher & Pasichnichenko, Illia, 2023. "Testing negative value of information and ambiguity aversion," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 213(C).
    6. Lohse, Johannes & McDonald, Rebecca, 2021. "Absolute groupishness and the demand for information," VfS Annual Conference 2021 (Virtual Conference): Climate Economics 242454, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    7. Felix Chopra & Ingar K. Haaland & Christopher Roth, 2019. "Do People Value More Informative News?," CESifo Working Paper Series 8026, CESifo.
    8. Tianchang Ni & Runping Zhu & Richard Krever, 2023. "Responses to News Overload in a Non-Partisan Environment: News Avoidance in China," SAGE Open, , vol. 13(3), pages 21582440231, July.
    9. Leung, Benson Tsz Kin, 2020. "Limited cognitive ability and selective information processing," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 345-369.
    10. Honglin Deng & Weiquan Wang & Kai H. Lim, 2025. "Addressing Online Users’ Suspicion of Sponsored Search Results: Effects of Informational Cues," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 36(1), pages 508-533, March.
    11. Hagenbach, Jeanne & Jacquemet, Nicolas & Sternal, Philipp, 2025. "The motivated memory of noise," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 152(C), pages 257-275.
    12. Katharina Momsen & Sebastian O. Schneider, 2022. "Motivated Reasoning, Information Avoidance, and Default Bias," Discussion Paper Series of the Max Planck Institute for Behavioral Economics 2022_03, Max Planck Institute for Behavioral Economics.
    13. Reiter-Gavish, Liron & Qadan, Mahmoud & Yagil, Joseph, 2021. "Financial advice: Who Exactly Follows It?," Research in Economics, Elsevier, vol. 75(3), pages 244-258.
    14. Daniele Pennesi, 2020. "Identity and information acquisition," Carlo Alberto Notebooks 610, Collegio Carlo Alberto, revised 2021.
    15. Hagenbach, Jeanne & ,, 2022. "Motivated Skepticism," CEPR Discussion Papers 17478, Centre for Economic Policy Research.
    16. Chopra, Felix & Haaland, Ingar & Roth, Christopher, 2022. "Do people demand fact-checked news? Evidence from U.S. Democrats," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 205(C).
    17. Daniele Pennesi, 2021. "Between Commitment and Flexibility: Revealing Anticipated Regret and Elation," Working papers 071, Department of Economics, Social Studies, Applied Mathematics and Statistics (Dipartimento di Scienze Economico-Sociali e Matematico-Statistiche), University of Torino.
    18. Chopra, Felix & Haaland, Ingar & Roth, Christopher, 2021. "The Demand for Fact Checking," CAGE Online Working Paper Series 563, Competitive Advantage in the Global Economy (CAGE).
    19. David L. Dickinson, 2020. "Deliberation enhances the confirmation bias. An examination of politics and religion," Working Papers 20-06, Department of Economics, Appalachian State University.
    20. Doris Läpple, 2023. "Information about Climate Change Mitigation: What Do Farmers Think?," EuroChoices, The Agricultural Economics Society, vol. 22(1), pages 74-80, April.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • D83 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Search; Learning; Information and Knowledge; Communication; Belief; Unawareness
    • C72 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - Noncooperative Games
    • D82 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Asymmetric and Private Information; Mechanism Design
    • D85 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Network Formation

    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:tse:wpaper:131013. 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: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/tsetofr.html .

    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.