More than three-quarters of U.S. households bear consumer debt, yet we have little understanding of the relationship between financial education and the debt behavior of U.S. consumers. In this paper, we study the effects of exposure to financial training on debt outcomes in early adulthood. Identification comes from variation in financial literacy, economics, and mathematics course offerings and graduation requirements mandated over the 1990s and 2000s by state-level high-school curricula. The FRBNY Consumer Credit Panel provides debt outcomes based on quarterly Equifax credit reports from 1999 to 2012. Our analysis, based on a flexible event-study approach, reveals significant effects of financial education on debt-related outcomes of youth. On the extensive margin, financial literacy education has a sizable impact on the propensity of youth having a credit report. Conditional on having a credit report, on the intensive margin, math and financial literacy education exposure reduces the incidence of adverse outcomes - such as accounts in collections and delinquent accounts - and reduces both the likelihood of youth carrying debt and their average debt balances. The net effect of both math and financial literacy education is an increase in youths' average creditworthiness, as measured by the Equifax risk score. On the other hand, economic education increases the likelihood of individuals carrying balances, leads to significant increases in debt balances - in particular, debt used to support consumption - and, at the same time, increases the likelihood of adverse credit outcomes, leading to a decline in youths' average risk scores. The effects of these financial education policies accumulate over the course of early adulthood. Our results suggest that financial education programs, increasingly promoted by policymakers, are likely to have significant impacts on the financial decision-making of youth, but the effects depend on the content of these programs.

Using a unique, randomized information experiment embedded in a survey, this paper investigates how consumers’ inflation expectations respond to new information. We find that respondents, on average, update their expectations in response to (certain types of) information, and do so sensibly, in a manner consistent with Bayesian updating. As a result of information provision, the distribution of inflation expectations converges toward its center and cross-sectional disagreement declines. We document heterogeneous information processing by gender and present suggestive evidence of respondents forecasting under asymmetric loss. Our results provide support for expectation-formation models in which agents form expectations rationally but face information constraints.

We use a survey experiment to generate direct evidence on how people acquire and process information. Participants can buy different information signals that could help them forecast future national home prices. We elicit their valuations and exogenously vary the cost of information. Participants put substantial value on their preferred signal and, when acquired, incorporate the signal in their beliefs. However, they disagree on which signal to buy. As a result, making information cheaper does not decrease the cross-sectional dispersion of expectations. We provide a model with costly acquisition and processing of information, which can match most of our empirical results.

We conduct two survey experiments to study which information people choose to consume and how it affects their beliefs. In the first experiment, respondents choose between optimistic and pessimistic article headlines related to the COVID-19 pandemic and are then randomly shown one of the articles. Respondents with more pessimistic prior beliefs tend to prefer pessimistic headlines, providing evidence of confirmation bias. Additionally, respondents assigned to the less preferred article discount its information. The second experiment studies the role of partisan views, uncovering strong source dependence: news source revelation further distorts information acquisition, eliminating the role of priors in article choice.

We study how peer beliefs shape individual attitudes toward maternal labor supply using hypothetical scenarios that elicit recommendations on the labor supply choices of a mother with a young child and an information treatment embedded within geographically representative surveys of the US population. Across scenarios, we find that individuals are systematically misinformed about the extent of gender conservativeness of the people around them. Exposure to information on peer beliefs leads to a shift in recommendations, driven largely by information-based belief updating. The information treatment also increases (intended and actual) donations to a non-profit organization advocating for women in the workplace.

This article investigates gender differences in the job search process in the field and lab. Our analysis is based on rich information on initial job offers and acceptances from undergraduates of Boston University’s Questrom School of Business. We find (i) a clear gender difference in the timing of job offer acceptance, with women accepting jobs substantially earlier than men, and (ii) a sizable gender earnings gap in accepted offers, which narrows in favor of women over the course of the job search period. To understand these patterns, we develop a job search model that incorporates gender differences in risk aversion and overoptimism about prospective offers. We validate the model’s assumptions and predictions using the survey data and present empirical evidence that the job search patterns in the field can be partly explained by the greater risk aversion displayed by women and the higher levels of overoptimism displayed by men. We replicate these findings in a laboratory experiment that features sequential job search and provide direct evidence on the purported mechanisms. Our findings highlight the importance of risk preferences and beliefs for gender differences in job-finding behavior and, consequently, early-career wage gaps among the highly educated.