American Economic Review 上的三篇论文，正式发表版本。

原文摘要:This paper shows that a small amount of individual-level money illusion may cause considerable aggregate nominal inertia after a negative nominal shock. In addition, our results indicate that negative and positive nominal shocks have asymmetric effects because of money illusion. While nominal inertia is quite substantial and long lasting after a negative shock, it is rather small after a positive shock.
Abstract of “Does Money Illusion Matter？：Comment”
This paper experimentally investigates whether money illusion generates
substantial nominal inertia. Building on the design of Fehr
and Tyran (2001), we find no evidence that agents choose high nominal
payoffs over high real payoffs. However, participants do select
prices associated with high nominal payoffs within a set of maximum
real payoffs as a heuristic to simplify their decision task. The cognitive
challenge of this task explains the majority of the magnitude of
nominal inertia; money illusion exerts only a second-order effect.
The duration of nominal inertia depends primarily on participants’
best response functions, not the prevalence of money illusion。


Abstract of “Does Money Illusion Matter？：Reply”
The data in Fehr and Tyran (2001) and Petersen and Winn (2014)
show that money illusion plays an important role in nominal price
adjustment after a fully anticipated negative monetary shock. Money
illusion affects subjects’ expectations, and causes pronounced
nominal inertia after a negative shock but much less inertia after a
positive shock. Thus Petersen and Winn (2014) provide a misleading
interpretation of both our and their own data.