working papers

Revise & resubmit at the American Economic Review
This paper studies which misspecified models are likely to persist when decision-makers compare them with competing models. The main result characterizes such models based on two features that can be derived from primitives: the model’s asymptotic accuracy in predicting the equilibrium distribution of observed outcomes and the “tightness” of the prior around such equilibria. Misspecified models can be robust, persisting against any arbitrary competing model—including the true model—despite decision-makers observing an infinite amount of data. Moreover, simple misspecified models equipped with entrenched priors can be more robust than complex correctly specified models.

Revise & resubmit at the Quarterly Journal of Economics
This paper explores how cognitive constraints interact with the information environment to determine whether people overreact or underreact to information. In our model of belief updating, limited attention leads people to form a distorted mental model or representation of the information environment, and limited processing capacity generates cognitive imprecision when using this representation to update beliefs. The model predicts overreaction when facing complex environments, noisy or surprising signals, or priors concentrated on moderate states; it predicts underreaction when facing simple environments, precise or confirmatory signals, or priors concentrated on extreme states. A series of pre-registered experiments provide support for these predictions and direct evidence for the proposed cognitive mechanisms. Crucially, the interaction between the cognitive constraints generates the observed pattern of bias: neither constraint on its own can explain the data. These results connect prior disparate findings on whether underreaction versus overreaction arises.