Recent studies document that market participants react positively to the positive language sentiment or tone embedded in financial disclosures, and that investors’ reactions to negative news are more muted with poor disclosure readability. However, while language sentiment and readability co‐occur in practice, their joint effects remain largely unexplored. In an experiment with MBA students as participants, we investigate how the effect of language sentiment varies with readability and investor sophistication level. We find that language sentiment influences investors’ judgments when readability is low, but not when readability is high. Specifically, when readability is low, disclosures couched in positive language lead to higher earnings judgments for less sophisticated investors, but lower earnings judgments for more sophisticated investors. These findings show that the main effects of readability and language sentiment documented in prior studies have boundary effects, and may reverse when both variables are jointly considered along with investor sophistication.

We conduct two experiments to investigate how readability (high versus low) and benchmark performance consistency (consistent versus inconsistent) influence investors' judgments. Using prior management guidance and year-ago quarter performance as two benchmarks against which to assess actual earnings performance, we manipulate whether the valence of guidance performance (positive or negative) and the valence of trend performance (positive or negative) are consistent with each other. We also manipulate the readability of trend performance in our main experiment. Our results show that when benchmark performance is inconsistent, higher as opposed to lower readability of positive (negative) trend performance leads to more (less) favorable investors' performance judgments. This effect of readability is smaller when benchmark performance is consistent. We also show that higher readability in the inconsistent benchmark performance condition improves investors' understanding of the firm's current-quarter performance, which in turn influences their judgments on the firm's future performance. In a supplementary experiment, we manipulate the readability of guidance performance in an inconsistent benchmark performance setting, and replicate the key finding that higher readability of positive guidance performance leads to more positive judgment on the firm's future performance.

Consumers’ health plan choices are highly persistent even though optimal plans change over time. This paper separates two sources of inertia, inattention to plan choice and switching costs. We develop a panel data model with separate attention and choice stages, linked by heterogeneity in acuity, i.e., the ability and willingness to make diligent choices. Using data from Medicare Part D, we find that inattention is an important source of inertia but switching costs also play a role, particularly for low-acuity individuals. Separating the two stages and allowing for heterogeneity is crucial for counterfactual simulations of interventions that reduce inertia.