The role of information frictions in study habit choice and academic performance

We study whether information frictions about the relative effectiveness of study methods distort how college students allocate multidimensional learning efforts and, in turn, affect their academic performance. Our baseline survey shows that students widely disagree about which study habits are more effective, and many devote substantial time to passive learning strategies such as rereading, despite evidence that active retrieval (eg, self-quizzing) is more effective. We show that these students' beliefs, and consequently their associated choices, explain academic performance. To distinguish biased beliefs from efficient heterogeneity, we randomize treated students into general or personalized feedback. We find that personalized feedback widens the perceived effectiveness gap between rereading and retrieval methods by 42 percent, shifts time toward more effective practices, and raises subsequent exam scores by 0.05-0.08 standard deviations. Finally, we develop and estimate a dynamic model of study efforts and convex allocation costs to quantify and shed light on the mechanisms behind the intervention. For students with the weakest baseline beliefs, the personalized treatment is equivalent to a 16.5 percent reduction in the cost of adopting more effective methods.