We test for stereotyping—the exaggeration of representative traits—in a high-stakes economic environment. Using surveys administered among undergraduates at the Ohio State University as well as large-scale nationally representative data, we measure how U.S. first-year students perceive the relationship between college majors and occupations. We show that students greatly overestimate the likelihood that majors lead to their representative jobs (e.g., counselor for psychology, journalist for journalism). Using an implicit association test, we show that students associate majors with their representative careers and that these associations strongly predict belief biases, in line with a stereotyping mechanism. A simple equilibrium model of the labor market predicts that stereotyping reduces welfare by increasing misallocation, which we corroborate with correlational evidence on job/major mismatch. In a field experiment, we test a light-touch policy to reduce stereotyping and find significant effects on students’ intentions about what to study as well as the classes and majors they enroll in.

In many economic decisions, people estimate probabilities, such as the likelihood that a risk materializes or that a job applicant will be a productive employee, by retrieving experiences from memory. We model this process based on two established regularities of selective recall: similarity and interference. We show that the similarity structure of a hypothesis and the way it is described (not just its objective probability) shape the recall of experiences and thus probability assessments. The model accounts for and reconciles a variety of empirical findings, such as overestimation of unlikely events when these are cued versus neglect of noncued ones, the availability heuristic, the representativeness heuristic, conjunction and disjunction fallacies, and over- versus underreaction to information in different situations. The model yields several new predictions, for which we find strong experimental support.

For standard statistical problems, we provide new evidence documenting (1) multimodality and (2) instability in probability estimates, including from irrelevant changes in problem description. The evidence motivates a model in which, when solving a problem, people represent each hypothesis by attending to its salient features while neglecting other, potentially more relevant, ones. Only the statistics associated with salient features are used. The model unifies biases in judgments about i.i.d. draws, such as the Gambler's Fallacy and insensitivity to sample size, with biases in inference such as under- and overreaction and insensitivity to the weight of evidence. The model makes predictions for how changes in the salience of specific features jointly shapes known biases and measured attention to features, but also create entirely new biases. We test and confirm these predictions experimentally. Salience-driven attention to features emerges as a unifying framework for biases conventionally explained using a variety of stable heuristics or distortions of Bayes' rule.

We study social learning using experiments where two people independently learn relevant information and can share it to make accurate private decisions. Across three experiments, people are substantially less sensitive to information others discover than to equally-relevant information they discovered themselves. This holds when they must learn information from others through discussion; when the experimenter perfectly communicates the information; and even when participants observe others’ information with their own eyes. Our results therefore stem not from a failure to elicit information from others but a systematic tendency to underweight it relative to one’s own information. Our findings illustrate a powerful barrier to social learning that might underlie many documented cases of failure to learn from others.