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.