Working Papers

2025

1. 

   [Political Sciences]

   (Politically) Motivated Information Acquisition: A Minimal Formal Framework

   Egor Bronnikov

   2025

   Abstract       PDF      

   Individuals with different identity-relevant beliefs often make divergent decisions even when presented with identical objective facts. This paper advances the theoretical understanding of motivated reasoning by developing a formal model that contrasts motivated information acquisition with a rational framework. We first explore how different types of decision makers—self- and unaware of their directional motives as well as information-sensitive motivated reasoners—make information acquisition choices based on their beliefs. Subsequently, we integrate the concept of separate decision utility to reevaluate our results in the context of actions. Our paper contributes to the theoretical literature on motivated reasoning and information acquisition, and connects to propaganda.

2. 

   [Economics]

   A Robust Measure of Complexity

   Egor Bronnikov, and Elias Tsakas

   2025

   Abstract       PDF      

   We introduce a robust belief-based measure of complexity. The idea is that task A is deemed more complex than task B if the probability of solving A correctly is smaller than the probability of solving B correctly regardless of the reward. We fully characterize the corresponding order over the set of tasks. The main characteristic of this relation is that it depends, not only on difficulty (like most complexity definitions in the literature) but also on ex ante uncertainty. Finally, we show that for every task for which information is optimally acquired, there exists a more complex task which always induces less effort regardless of the reward.

3. 

   [Economics/Political Science/Reproducibility]

   Comparing Human-Only, AI-Assisted, and AI-Led Teams on Assessing Research Reproducibility in Quantitative Social Science

   Abel Brodeur, and 266 co-authors

   I4R Discussion Paper Series,  2025,  no. 195

   Abstract      HTML     

   This study evaluates the effectiveness of varying levels of human and artificial intelligence (AI) integration in reproducibility assessments of quantitative social science research. We computationally reproduced quantitative results from published articles in the social sciences with 288 researchers, randomly assigned to 103 teams across three groups — human-only teams, AI-assisted teams and teams whose task was to minimally guide an AI to conduct reproducibility checks (the ’AI-led’ approach). Findings reveal that when working independently, human teams matched the reproducibility success rates of teams using AI assistance, while both groups substantially outperformed AI-led approaches (with human teams achieving 57 percentage points higher success rates than AI-led teams, p < 0.001). Human teams were particularly effective at identifying serious problems in the analysis: they found significantly more major errors compared to both AI-assisted teams (0.7 more errors per team, p = 0.017) and AI-led teams (1.1 more errors per team, p < 0.001). AI-assisted teams demonstrated an advantage over more automated approaches, detecting 0.4 more major errors per team than AI-led teams (p = 0.029), though still significantly fewer than human-only teams. Finally, both human and AI-assisted teams significantly outperformed AIled approaches in both proposing (25 percentage points difference, p = 0.017) and implementing (33 percentage points difference, p = 0.005) comprehensive robustness checks. These results underscore both the strengths and limitations of AI assistance in research reproduction and suggest that despite impressive advancements in AI capability, key aspects of the research publication process still require human substantial human involvement.

4. 

   [Social Sciences]

   Dissernet: Overcoming Scientific Misconduct in Post-Soviet Academia

   Egor Bronnikov, and Andrey Rostovtsev

   2025

   Abstract

   TBA.

2025

1. 

   [Economics]

   Motivated Efforts.

   Egor Bronnikov

   2025

   Abstract

   A remarkable state of the current literature on motivated reasoning is the idea that, although humans update their beliefs in a manner that deviates significantly from rational Bayesian reasoning, this divergence does not necessarily translate into corresponding actions. This paper is the first to explore how distorted beliefs can influence individuals’ effort provision in non-zero-sum games. Through laboratory experiments, we aim to document how subjects – Bayesian updaters and Motivated reasoners – update their beliefs and make commitments to exert effort in the context of identity-relevant tasks.

2. 

   [Political Science]

   Democracy’s Chance: The Shaping of Public Opinion Through Transitional Justice

   Egor Bronnikov, and Monika Nalepa

   2025

   Abstract

   TBA.

3. 

   [Economics]

   (De)Motivating Sentiments: The Effects of Induced Emotions on Asymmetric Belief Updating

   Egor Bronnikov, and Michalis Drouvelis

   2025

   Abstract

   TBA.

4. 

   [Economics]

   The Vaguer–The Clearer: How Interpretability Shapes (Errors in) Belief Updating

   Egor Bronnikov, and Sebastian J. Goerg

   2025

   Abstract

   TBA.

5. 

   [Economics]

   Does the Bell Still Toll? How Civil War Narratives Shape Current Political Preferences in Spain

   Egor Bronnikov, and Cristina Figueroa

   2025

   Abstract

   TBA.

6. 

   [Economics]

   Wartime Preferences: The Effect of Violence Exposure on Time and Risk Attitudes

   Egor Bronnikov, and Hannes Rusch

   2025

   Abstract

   TBA.

7. 

   [Political Science]

   Breaking Through the Information Bubble: The Role of U.S. (Non-)Partisanship in Polarization

   Egor Bronnikov, Kaj Thomsson, Elias Tsakas, and Alexander Vostroknutov

   2025

   Abstract

   TBA.

2024

1. 

   [Political Science]

   Unmasking Postmodern Autocratic Propaganda: What We Know About It And What We Don’t.

   Egor Bronnikov

   World Politics: Proposal Approved,  2024

   Abstract

   This review essay aims to address several questions raised by the impact of propaganda in modern autocracies. It also examines the distinctions between this form of propaganda and the one traditionally associated with classical dictatorships, as well as its correlation with repression and protests in present-day autocracies. To achieve this, the essay will conduct an in-depth analysis of recent research papers and books that explore the fundamentals of propaganda and its manifestations in contemporary autocratic regimes. The objectives of this review are threefold. First, to provide a synopsis of the cutting-edge knowledge on propaganda as presented in the literature. Second, to offer a critical analysis that integrates recent literature from political science and economics to yield a more comprehensive assessment. Third, to identify the gaps in our current comprehension of propaganda in modern autocracies.