IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/mateco/v94y2021ics0304406820301452.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Disentangling preferences and limited attention: Random-utility models with consideration sets

Author

Listed:
  • Gibbard, Peter

Abstract

This paper presents a model of choice with limited attention. The decision-maker forms a consideration set, from which she chooses her most preferred alternative. Both preferences and consideration sets are stochastic. While we present axiomatisations for this model, our focus is on the following identification question: to what extent can an observer retrieve probabilities of preferences and consideration sets from observed choices? Our first conclusion is a negative one: if the observed data are choice probabilities, then probabilities of preferences and consideration sets cannot be retrieved from choice probabilities. We solve the identification problem by assuming that an “enriched” dataset is observed, which includes choice probabilities under two frames. Given this dataset, the model is “fully identified”, in the sense that we can recover from observed choices (i) the probabilities of preferences (to the same extent as in models with full attention) and (ii) the probabilities of consideration sets. While a number of recent papers have developed models of limited attention that are, in a similar sense, “fully identified”, they obtain this result not by using an enriched dataset but rather by making a restrictive assumption about the default option, which our paper avoids.

Suggested Citation

  • Gibbard, Peter, 2021. "Disentangling preferences and limited attention: Random-utility models with consideration sets," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 94(C).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:mateco:v:94:y:2021:i:c:s0304406820301452
    DOI: 10.1016/j.jmateco.2020.102468
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304406820301452
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.jmateco.2020.102468?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Valentino Dardanoni & Paola Manzini & Marco Mariotti & Christopher J. Tyson, 2020. "Inferring Cognitive Heterogeneity From Aggregate Choices," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 88(3), pages 1269-1296, May.
    2. Kate Ho & Joseph Hogan & Fiona Scott Morton, 2017. "The impact of consumer inattention on insurer pricing in the Medicare Part D program," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 48(4), pages 877-905, December.
    3. Paola Manzini & Marco Mariotti, 2014. "Stochastic Choice and Consideration Sets," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 82(3), pages 1153-1176, May.
    4. Matias D. Cattaneo & Xinwei Ma & Yusufcan Masatlioglu & Elchin Suleymanov, 2020. "A Random Attention Model," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 128(7), pages 2796-2836.
    5. Jason Abaluck & Abi Adams, 2017. "What do consumers consider before they choose? Identification from asymmetric demand responses," IFS Working Papers W17/09, Institute for Fiscal Studies.
    6. Jason Abaluck & Abi Adams, 2017. "What Do Consumers Consider Before They Choose? Identification from Asymmetric Demand Responses," NBER Working Papers 23566, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    7. Horan, Sean, 2019. "Random consideration and choice: A case study of “default” options," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 73-84.
    8. Masatlioglu, Yusufcan & Ok, Efe A., 2005. "Rational choice with status quo bias," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 121(1), pages 1-29, March.
    9. Lleras, Juan Sebastián & Masatlioglu, Yusufcan & Nakajima, Daisuke & Ozbay, Erkut Y., 2017. "When more is less: Limited consideration," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 170(C), pages 70-85.
    10. Florian Heiss & Daniel McFadden & Joachim Winter & Amelie Wuppermann & Bo Zhou, 2016. "Inattention and Switching Costs as Sources of Inertia in Medicare Part D," NBER Working Papers 22765, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    11. Victor H. Aguiar & Maria Jose Boccardi & Nail Kashaev & Jeongbin Kim, 2023. "Random utility and limited consideration," Quantitative Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 14(1), pages 71-116, January.
    12. Yusufcan Masatlioglu & Daisuke Nakajima & Erkut Y. Ozbay, 2012. "Revealed Attention," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 102(5), pages 2183-2205, August.
    13. Hauser, John R., 2014. "Consideration-set heuristics," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 67(8), pages 1688-1699.
    14. Richard L. Brady & John Rehbeck, 2016. "Menu‐Dependent Stochastic Feasibility," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 84, pages 1203-1223, May.
    15. Demirkan, Yusufcan & Kimya, Mert, 2020. "Hazard rate, stochastic choice and consideration sets," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 142-150.
    16. Yusufcan Masatlioglu & Daisuke Nakajima, 2015. "Completing Incomplete Revealed Preference Under Limited Attention," The Japanese Economic Review, Japanese Economic Association, vol. 66(3), pages 285-299, September.
    17. Aguiar, Victor H., 2017. "Random categorization and bounded rationality," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 159(C), pages 46-52.
    18. Barbera, Salvador & Pattanaik, Prasanta K, 1986. "Falmagne and the Rationalizability of Stochastic Choices in Terms of Random Orderings," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 54(3), pages 707-715, May.
    19. B. Douglas Bernheim & Antonio Rangel, 2009. "Beyond Revealed Preference: Choice-Theoretic Foundations for Behavioral Welfare Economics," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 124(1), pages 51-104.
    20. Yuval Salant & Ariel Rubinstein, 2008. "(A, f): Choice with Frames -super-1," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 75(4), pages 1287-1296.
    21. Yusufcan Masatlioglu & Efe A. Ok, 2014. "A Canonical Model of Choice with Initial Endowments," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 81(2), pages 851-883.
    22. , & ,, 2011. "Search, choice, and revealed preference," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 6(1), January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Turansick, Christopher, 2022. "Identification in the random utility model," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 203(C).
    2. Kovach, Matthew & Suleymanov, Elchin, 2023. "Reference dependence and random attention," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 215(C), pages 421-441.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Kovach, Matthew & Suleymanov, Elchin, 2023. "Reference dependence and random attention," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 215(C), pages 421-441.
    2. Victor H. Aguiar & Maria Jose Boccardi & Nail Kashaev & Jeongbin Kim, 2023. "Random utility and limited consideration," Quantitative Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 14(1), pages 71-116, January.
    3. Kashaev, Nail & Aguiar, Victor H., 2022. "A random attention and utility model," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 204(C).
    4. Nail Kashaev & Natalia Lazzati, 2019. "Peer Effects in Random Consideration Sets," Papers 1904.06742, arXiv.org, revised May 2021.
    5. Valentino Dardanoni & Paola Manzini & Marco Mariotti & Christopher J. Tyson, 2020. "Inferring Cognitive Heterogeneity From Aggregate Choices," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 88(3), pages 1269-1296, May.
    6. Levon Barseghyan & Maura Coughlin & Francesca Molinari & Joshua C. Teitelbaum, 2021. "Heterogeneous Choice Sets and Preferences," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 89(5), pages 2015-2048, September.
    7. Aguiar, Victor H. & Kimya, Mert, 2019. "Adaptive stochastic search," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 74-83.
    8. Levon Barseghyan & Francesca Molinari & Matthew Thirkettle, 2021. "Discrete Choice under Risk with Limited Consideration," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 111(6), pages 1972-2006, June.
    9. Kops, Christopher, 2022. "Cluster-shortlisted choice," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 102(C).
    10. T. Hayashi & R. Jain & V. Korpela & M. Lombardi, 2023. "Behavioral strong implementation," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 76(4), pages 1257-1287, November.
    11. Demirkan, Yusufcan & Kimya, Mert, 2020. "Hazard rate, stochastic choice and consideration sets," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 142-150.
    12. Yusufcan Masatlioglu & Elchin Suleymanov, 2021. "Decision making within a product network," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 71(1), pages 185-209, February.
    13. Caliari, Daniele, 2023. "Behavioural welfare analysis and revealed preference: Theory and experimental evidence," Discussion Papers, Research Unit: Economics of Change SP II 2023-303, WZB Berlin Social Science Center.
    14. Crawford, Gregory S. & Griffith, Rachel & Iaria, Alessandro, 2021. "A survey of preference estimation with unobserved choice set heterogeneity," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 222(1), pages 4-43.
    15. Xavier Gabaix, 2017. "Behavioral Inattention," NBER Working Papers 24096, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    16. Yaron Azrieli & John Rehbeck, 2022. "Marginal stochastic choice," Papers 2208.08492, arXiv.org.
    17. Carlos Alós-Ferrer & Ernst Fehr & Nick Netzer, 2021. "Time Will Tell: Recovering Preferences When Choices Are Noisy," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 129(6), pages 1828-1877.
    18. Chadd, Ian, 2023. "Random network consideration: Theory and experiment," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 211(C), pages 251-269.
    19. Andrew Ellis & Yusufcan Masatlioglu, 2022. "Choice with Endogenous Categorization [The Adaptive Nature of Human Categorization]," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 89(1), pages 240-278.
    20. Yegane, Ece, 2022. "Stochastic choice with limited memory," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 205(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:mateco:v:94:y:2021:i:c:s0304406820301452. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jmateco .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.