Mental Models of the Stock Market
Clicks: 10
ID: 322558
2026
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This
article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score —
reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
Reader Engagement
Emerging Content
2.7
/100
10 views
0 readers
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
EmergingRanked #18 of 441 articles by views in the quarterly journal of economics
Most read
Least read
Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 441 in total.
Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet mintedCreate a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.
5
SUSD
one-off · no wallet required
Abstract
Abstract Investors’ return expectations are pivotal in stock markets, but the reasoning behind these expectations is not well understood. This paper explores economic agents’ mental models of what drives returns. We survey the general population, retail investors, financial professionals, and academic experts to investigate how they forecast and explain future returns in scenarios with stale news about future company earnings. We find that investors strongly disagree in their forecasts and reasoning. Most academic experts view markets as efficient. By contrast, most households express a perspective we call “expected earnings reasoning”: they directly equate higher expected earnings with higher expected returns. Professionals are split between market efficiency, mispricing, and expected earnings reasoning. In detailed experiments, we dissect why households adopt expected earnings reasoning. We show that it arises from inattention to how stock-price changes affect investor costs — that is, how much investors must pay to acquire a claim to future cash flows — because the typical format and context of investment problems obscure these cost implications. Our results help connect a series of previously documented anomalies in expectation and trading data and highlight the importance of selective attention and context in shaping reasoning and belief formation.
| Reference Key |
openalex_W7171132448
Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using
SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
|
|---|---|
| Authors | Peter Andre, Philipp Schirmer, Johannes Wohlfart |
| Journal | the quarterly journal of economics |
| Year | 2026 |
| DOI |
10.1093/qje/qjag039
|
| URL | |
| Keywords | Keywords not found |
Citations
No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org
Comments
No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.