We propose a method to measure people's subjective models of the macroeconomy. Using a sample of 2,200 households representative of the US population and a sample of more than 1,000 experts, we measure beliefs about how the unemployment rate and the inflation rate respond to four different hypothetical exogenous shocks: a monetary policy shock, a government spending shock, an income tax shock, and an oil price shock. While expert predictions are quantitatively close to benchmarks from standard DSGE models and VAR evidence and relatively homogeneous, there is strong heterogeneity among households. Households predict changes in unemployment that are largely in line with the experts' responses for all four shocks. However, their predictions of changes in inflation are at odds with those of experts both for the tax shock and the interest rate shock. We show that a substantial fraction of deviations of household predictions from expert predictions can be explained by the use of a simple heuristic according to which people expect a positive co-movement among variables they perceive as good and among variables they perceive as bad. Our findings inform the validity of central assumptions about the expectation formation process and have important implications for the optimal design of fiscal and monetary policy.

We study people’s subjective models of the macroeconomy and shed light on their attentional foundations. To do so, we measure beliefs about the effects of macroeconomic shocks on unemployment and inflation, providing respondents with identical information about the parameters of the shocks and previous realizations of macroeconomic variables. Within samples of 6,500 US households and 1,500 experts, beliefs are widely dispersed, even about the directional effects of shocks, and there are large differences in average beliefs between households and experts. Part of this disagreement seems to arise because respondents think of different propagation channels of the shocks, in particular demand- versus supply-side mechanisms. We provide evidence on the role of associative memory in driving heterogeneity in thoughts and forecasts: Contextual cues and prior experiences shape which propagation channels individuals retrieve and thereby which forecasts they make. Our findings offer a new perspective on the widely documented disagreement in macroeconomic expectations.

No abstract

No abstract