The research in Psychology and Economics (a.k.a. Behavioral Economics) suggests that individuals deviate from the standard model in three respects: (1) nonstandard preferences, (2) nonstandard beliefs, and (3) nonstandard decision making. In this paper, I survey the empirical evidence from the field on these three classes of deviations. The evidence covers a number of applications, from consumption to finance, from crime to voting, from charitable giving to labor supply. In the class of nonstandard preferences, I discuss time preferences (self-control problems), risk preferences (reference dependence), and social preferences. On nonstandard beliefs, I present evidence on overconfidence, on the law of small numbers, and on projection bias. Regarding nonstandard decision making, I cover framing, limited attention, menu effects, persuasion and social pressure, and emotions. I also present evidence on how rational actors -- firms, employers, CEOs, investors, and politicians -- respond to the nonstandard behavior described in the survey. Finally, I briefly discuss under what conditions experience and market interactions limit the impact of the nonstandard features.

Does limited attention among investors affect stock returns? We compare the response to earnings announcements on Friday, when investor inattention is more likely, to the response on other weekdays. If inattention influences stock prices, we should observe less immediate response and more drift for Friday announcements. Indeed, Friday announcements have a 15% lower immediate response and a 70% higher delayed response. A portfolio investing in differential Friday drift earns substantial abnormal returns. In addition, trading volume is 8% lower around Friday announcements. These findings support explanations of post-earnings announcement drift based on underreaction to information caused by limited attention. * DellaVigna is from the Department of Economics, University of California, Berkeley. Pollet is from the Department of Finance, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. A previous version of the paper was distributed under the title "Strategic Release of Information on Friday: Evidence from Earnings Announcements". We thank John Campbell, David Card, Raj Chetty, James Choi, Kent Daniel, Yonca Ertimur, John Graham, David Hirshleifer, Wei Jiang, Lawrence Katz, David Laibson, Owen Lamont, Ulrike Malmendier, Maria Nondorf, Ashley Pollet, Allen Poteshman, Torsten Persson, Matthew Rabin, Jeremy Stein, Xiao-Jun Zhang, and audiences at Duke (Fuqua), the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, IIES (Stockholm), London Business School, Northwestern (Kellogg), Stanford University (GSB), University College (London), UC Berkeley, UI Urbana-Champaign, University of Zürich, the Adam Smith Asset Pricing Conference (LBS), the AEA Meetings 2005, the SITE 2004 (Psychology and Economics), and the Yale Conference on Behavioral Science for valuable comments. Jessica Chan, Eric Fleekop, Richard Kim, Clarice Li, Ming Mai, Raymond Son, Matthew Stone, and Terry Yee helped collect the announcement dates from the newswires. Dan Acland, Saurabh Bhargava, and Tatyana Deryugina provided excellent research assistance.Investors have a limited amount of time and cognitive resources to process information. Despite the intuitive appeal of limited attention, little evidence exists on the extent to which the quality of decision-making by investors declines in response to distractions. Incentives, information aggregation across investors, and arbitrageurs may eliminate the effects of limited attention.We examine a decision where attention to new information plays a crucial role, the response to earnings surprises. We compare announcements that occur just before the weekend, on Friday, to announcements on other weekdays. If weekends distract investors and lower the quality of decision-making, the immediate response to Friday earnings surprises should be less pronounced. As investors revisit their decisions in subsequent periods, the information should eventually be incorporated in stock prices. As a result, the delayed response, measured by the post-earnings announcement drift, should be of greater magnitude for Friday announceme...

Does media bias affect voting? We analyze the entry of Fox News in cable markets and its impact on voting. Between October 1996 and November 2000, the conservative Fox News Channel was introduced in the cable programming of 20 percent of U. S. towns. Fox News availability in 2000 appears to be largely idiosyncratic, conditional on a set of controls. Using a data set of voting data for 9,256 towns, we investigate if Republicans gained vote share in towns where Fox News entered the cable market by the year 2000. We find a significant effect of the introduction of Fox News on the vote share in Presidential elections between 1996 and 2000. Republicans gained 0.4 to 0.7 percentage points in the towns that broadcast Fox News. Fox News also affected voter turnout and the Republican vote share in the Senate. Our estimates imply that Fox News convinced 3 to 28 percent of its viewers to vote Republican, depending on the audience measure. The Fox News effect could be a temporary learning effect for rational voters, or a permanent effect for nonrational voters subject to persuasion. Copyright by the President and Fellows of Harvard College and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Every year, 90 percent of Americans give money or time to charities. Is such generosity necessarily welfare enhancing? We present a theoretical framework that pinpoints two types of motivation: individuals like to give, e.g., due to altruism or warm glow, or individuals would rather not give but dislike saying no, e.g., due to social pressure. To distinguish the two types of motivation, we design a door-to-door fund-raising drive in which we vary the ability of households to seek or avoid a solicitor. Some households are informed about the exact time of solicitation with a flyer on the door-knob; thus, they can seek the fund-raiser if giving is welfare-enhancing, and avoid it if giving is welfare-decreasing. We find that the flyer reduces the share of households opening the door by 10 to 25 percent, suggesting that the average household seeks to avoid fund-raisers. Moreover, if the flyer allows checking a box for 'Do Not Disturb' giving is 30 percent lower. The latter decrease is concentrated among donations smaller than $10. These findings suggest that both types of motivation affect charitable giving, with more evidence supporting the social pressure explanation. Combining reduced form insights from these treatments with data gathered from a complementary field experiment, we are able to structurally estimate altruism and social pressure parameters.