Total: 1
People often face environments where multiple models compete to explain the same observations. This paper examines how people update beliefs in such settings and how preferences over payoff-relevant states shape model selection and belief updating. This paper first develops a framework where preference-driven bias distorts the perceived model, affecting Bayesian and best-fit updating differently. In a laboratory experiment, most participants are classified as Bayesian updaters, who average across models, while a substantial minority are classified as best-fit updaters, who select the model that best fits the observed signal. Within-participant comparisons between the symmetric payoff and asymmetric payoff conditions indicate that asymmetric payoffs shift reported beliefs toward the preferred state, particularly among participants classified as best-fit updaters. Relative to symmetric payoffs, asymmetric payoffs increase the reported belief of the preferred state by about 8 percentage points among best-fit updaters, while the estimated effect among Bayesian updaters is close to zero. These findings help us better understand model-based learning and have implications for domains such as political polarization and financial investment, where competing narratives and strong preferences often coexist.