How do people learn from their learning experiences? I study how past learning shapes beliefs about future skill acquisition and investment decisions, using a controlled experiment that exogenously manipulates learning ability and skill shortage. By eliciting predicted learning trajectories at multiple horizons, I decompose belief errors into two channels: parameter error—misestimation of one's learning ability—and function error—misunderstanding how ability translates into skill acquisition over time. On average, learning experience reduces rather than improves forecast accuracy. This is driven by negative learning experiences: after struggling, participants do not infer low ability but instead become more confident in systematically misspecified models of learning. As a result, belief updating generates pessimism that reduces investment in skill acquisition by 37%. These results suggest that the primary barrier to optimal human capital investment is not inaccurate self-assessment, but a distorted understanding of the learning process itself. 

Do discounts affect future demand through psychological mechanisms inconsistent with rational responses? We study this question in a field experiment in Malawi, whereby a direct sales team randomly assigned discounts for a preventive health care product, revisiting households a few weeks later to elicit their willingness to pay (WTP) for that and other goods. We document that past discounts significantly reduce WTP, with clear evidence of anchoring: the distribution of WTP spikes at round-1 prices, regardless of purchasing decisions. Strikingly, anchoring arises even for goods not offered at the first visit. Design choices allow us to rule out rational explanations for these patterns, such as intertemporal substitution, price-based inference about quality, or learning about costs. Results help reconcile conflicting findings from the literature and have broader implications for welfare analyses of price changes.

Perceptions of what potential partners value may shape major life choices, from career investments to the division of household labor. Yet little is known about whether these perceptions are accurate. We study this question using a lab-in-the-field experiment on a Swiss online dating platform, combining incentive-compatible elicitation of individuals’ preferences over partner characteristics with beliefs about what potential partners desire. We uncover large and systematic misperceptions. While revealed preferences are relatively progressive, beliefs remain strongly anchored in traditional gender norms. Most strikingly, women overestimate men’s preference for traditional domestic roles by roughly 500%. Men, in turn, substantially underestimate women’s valuation of egalitarian partners and incorrectly believe that high income can compensate for traditional gender attitudes. These misperceptions imply that both women and men may make suboptimal career and domestic investment decisions, potentially perpetuating gender inequality. In a follow-up field experiment, we test whether correcting these beliefs causally affects signaling behavior, match formation, and skill investment choices.