Tento článek zkoumá, jak jednotlivci s rozdělují svou pozornost mezi neutrální a zaujaté zpravodajské zdroje. Vyvíjím model, v němž si aktéři racionálně volí portfolio mediálních zdrojů, aby se dozvěděli více o nejistém stavu světa. Zatímco konfirmační zkreslení se objevuje jako výchozí výsledek v případě, že jsou k dispozici pouze zaujaté zdroje, přítomnost dostatečně přesného neutrálního zdroje zásadně mění optimální způsob získávání informací. Neutrální zdroje nejen zmírňují přesvědčení, ale také přetvářejí informační hodnotu zaujatých kanálů. Zejména aktéři se slabými názory mohou optimálně kombinovat neutrální zdroje se zdroji, které jsou v rozporu s jejich předchozími názory. Toto portfolio využívá asymetrickou komplementaritu mezi spolehlivou neutrální informací a možností okamžitého rozřešení nejistoty, kterou poskytují protichůdné zdroje, což vede ve vznik silných přesvědčení, aniž by byla nutná jakákoli vnitřní preference pro nesouhlas.
Keywords: rational inattention, platform design, attention monetization, digital markets
Digital retail platforms act as information gatekeepers, shaping market outcomes by controlling both pricing mechanisms and the flow of information. This paper develops a theoretical model of a platform that simultaneously optimizes two revenue streams: a per-purchase transaction fee and the monetization of user attention. I model buyers as rationally inattentive agents who strategically allocate limited cognitive resources to learn about product quality.
The platform faces a fundamental trade-off: increasing the cost of information (attention price) via advertising load can boost immediate revenue and prevent buyers from rejecting low-quality items, but it may also "obfuscate" the market, deterring search and reducing transaction fee income. By deriving the platform’s optimal pricing policy across a continuum of buyers with heterogeneous outside options, this research identifies a non-trivial profit-maximizing equilibrium. Bridging Industrial Organization and Rational Inattention, the paper provides a novel framework for understanding platform market power and offers timely insights for digital regulations like the EU’s Digital Markets Act.
Reference and Severity Considerations in Sentencing: Evidence from a Czech Criminal Law Reform
Sentencing ranges can influence judicial decision-making through multiple behavioral channels. This paper studies a reform of the nominal damage thresholds classifying theft offenses into statutory categories. As a result of this reform, some offenses were moved to less serious categories, facing reduced sentencing ranges (e.g., from 2–8 to 1–5 years of imprisonment), while for others the formal range remained unchanged (e.g., 1–5 years) but the category was expanded to include more severe cases. I find that judges impose significantly shorter prison sentences both for offenses with explicitly lowered sentencing ranges and for offenses whose statutory ranges remained unchanged yet came to encompass more severe conduct. The findings provide evidence for two distinct mechanisms: a severity channel, whereby sentencing ranges signal the legislator’s assessment of offense seriousness, and a reference channel, whereby judges evaluate cases relative to other offenses within the same statutory range. The findings demonstrate that sentencing range reforms can have broader and more nuanced effects than those implied by formal changes in statutory minimums and maximums alone. More broadly, the paper highlights the importance of reference-based judicial reasoning in the development and assessment of sentencing policy.
Team Composition and Productivity in Constitutional Courts: Evidence from Judge Rotation in the Czech Republic
with Nikolas Mittag and Michal Šoltés
This study examines the impact of various team characteristics on work efficiency. To identify this effect, we exploit a quasi-exogenous mechanism that assigns constitutional court judges to three-member panels. Using a newly compiled dataset of panel decisions from [years], we find that panel composition—particularly its diversity—significantly influences decision-making outcomes, such as the duration of proceedings, the success rate of proposals, and the frequency of citations. We further analyze the effects of judges’ professional background, education, age, and gender on these outcomes.
