Skip to Main Content
HBS Home
  • About
  • Academic Programs
  • Alumni
  • Faculty & Research
  • Baker Library
  • Giving
  • Harvard Business Review
  • Initiatives
  • News
  • Recruit
  • Map / Directions
Faculty & Research
  • Faculty
  • Research
  • Featured Topics
  • Academic Units
  • …→
  • Harvard Business School→
  • Faculty & Research→
Publications
Publications
  • 2017
  • Article
  • Journal of Economic Perspectives

Frictions or Mental Gaps: What's Behind the Information We (Don't) Use and When Do We Care?

By: Benjamin Handel and Joshua Schwartzstein
  • Format:Print
ShareBar

Abstract

Consumers suffer significant losses from not acting on available information. These losses stem from frictions such as search costs, switching costs, and rational inattention, as well as what we call mental gaps resulting from wrong priors/worldviews, or relevant features of a problem not being top of mind. Most research studying such losses does not empirically distinguish between these mechanisms. Instead, we show that most highly cited papers in this area presume one mechanism underlies consumer choices and assume away other potential explanations or collapse many mechanisms altogether. We discuss the empirical difficulties that arise in distinguishing between different mechanisms as well as some promising approaches for making progress in doing so. We also assess when it is more or less important for researchers to distinguish between these mechanisms. Approaches that seek to identify true value from demand, without specifying mechanisms behind this wedge, are most useful when researchers are interested in evaluating allocation policies that strongly steer consumers towards better options with regulation, traditional policy instruments, and defaults. On the other hand, understanding the precise mechanisms underlying consumer losses is essential to predicting the impact of mechanism policies aimed primarily at reducing specific frictions or mental gaps without otherwise steering consumers. We make the case that papers engaging with these questions empirically should be clear about whether their analyses distinguish between mechanisms behind poorly informed choices and what that implies for the questions they can answer. We present examples from several empirical contexts to highlight these distinctions.

Keywords

Information; Consumer Behavior

Citation

Handel, Benjamin, and Joshua Schwartzstein. "Frictions or Mental Gaps: What's Behind the Information We (Don't) Use and When Do We Care?" Journal of Economic Perspectives 32, no. 1 (Winter 2018): 155–178.
  • Find it at Harvard
  • Read Now

About The Author

Joshua R. Schwartzstein

Negotiation, Organizations & Markets
→More Publications

More from the Authors

    • December 2021
    • Faculty Research

    Value-Based Insurance Design at Onex

    By: Joshua Schwartzstein, Amitabh Chandra and Amram Migdal
    • 2021
    • Faculty Research

    Channeled Attention and Stable Errors

    By: Tristan Gagnon-Bartsch, Matthew Rabin and Joshua Schwartzstein
    • 2021
    • Faculty Research

    Shared Models in Networks, Organizations, and Groups

    By: Joshua Schwartzstein and Adi Sunderam
More from the Authors
  • Value-Based Insurance Design at Onex By: Joshua Schwartzstein, Amitabh Chandra and Amram Migdal
  • Channeled Attention and Stable Errors By: Tristan Gagnon-Bartsch, Matthew Rabin and Joshua Schwartzstein
  • Shared Models in Networks, Organizations, and Groups By: Joshua Schwartzstein and Adi Sunderam
ǁ
Campus Map
Harvard Business School
Soldiers Field
Boston, MA 02163
→Map & Directions
→More Contact Information
  • Make a Gift
  • Site Map
  • Jobs
  • Harvard University
  • Trademarks
  • Policies
  • Digital Accessibility
Copyright © President & Fellows of Harvard College