IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jmathe/v8y2020i2p199-d317036.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Game Theoretic Model of Choosing a Valuable Good via a Short List Heuristic

Author

Listed:
  • David M. Ramsey

    (Faculty of Computer Science and Management, Wroclaw University of Science and Technology, 50-370 Wrocław, Poland)

Abstract

The Internet gives access to a huge amount of data at the click of a mouse. This is very helpful when consumers are making decisions about which product to buy. However, the final decision to purchase is still generally made by humans who have limited memory and perception. The short list heuristic is often used when there are many offers on the market. Searchers first find information about offers via the Internet and on this basis choose a relatively small number of offers to view in real life. Although such rules are often used in practice, little research has been carried out on determining, for example, what the size of the short list should be depending on the parameters of the problem or modelling how the short list heuristic can be implemented when there are multiple decision makers. This article presents a game theoretic model of such a search procedure with two players. These two players can be interpreted, for example, as a couple searching for a flat or a second-hand car. The model indicates that under such a search procedure the roles of searchers should only be divided when the preferences of the players are coherent or there is a high level of goodwill between them. In other cases, dividing the roles leads to a high level of conflict.

Suggested Citation

  • David M. Ramsey, 2020. "A Game Theoretic Model of Choosing a Valuable Good via a Short List Heuristic," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 8(2), pages 1-20, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jmathe:v:8:y:2020:i:2:p:199-:d:317036
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7390/8/2/199/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7390/8/2/199/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Abhinash Borah & Christopher Kops, 2019. "Rational choices: an ecological approach," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 86(3), pages 401-420, May.
    2. Gigerenzer, Gerd & Todd, Peter M. & ABC Research Group,, 2000. "Simple Heuristics That Make Us Smart," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780195143812.
    3. Horan, Sean, 2016. "A simple model of two-stage choice," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 162(C), pages 372-406.
    4. 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.
    5. Pamela Giustinelli & Charles F. Manski, 2018. "Survey Measures Of Family Decision Processes For Econometric Analysis Of Schooling Decisions," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 56(1), pages 81-99, January.
    6. Herbert A. Simon, 1955. "A Behavioral Model of Rational Choice," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 69(1), pages 99-118.
    7. Yusufcan Masatlioglu & Daisuke Nakajima & Erkut Y. Ozbay, 2012. "Revealed Attention," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 102(5), pages 2183-2205, August.
    8. Andrew Caplin & Mark Dean & John Leahy, 2019. "Rational Inattention, Optimal Consideration Sets, and Stochastic Choice," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 86(3), pages 1061-1094.
    9. Andreas M. Hefti, 2011. "Attention competition," ECON - Working Papers 028, Department of Economics - University of Zurich.
    10. Au, Pak Hung & Kawai, Keiichi, 2011. "Sequentially rationalizable choice with transitive rationales," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 73(2), pages 608-614.
    11. Urszula Markowska-Przybyła & David Ramsey, 2014. "A game theoretical study of generalized trust and reciprocation in Poland. I. Theory and experimental design," Operations Research and Decisions, Wroclaw University of Science and Technology, Faculty of Management, vol. 24(3), pages 59-76.
    12. Abhinash Bora & Christopher Kops, 2019. "Rational Choices: An Ecological Approach," Working Papers 1011, Ashoka University, Department of Economics.
    13. Dorota Górecka & Ewa Roszkowska & Tomasz Wachowicz, 2016. "The MARS Approach in the Verbal and Holistic Evaluation of the Negotiation Template," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 25(6), pages 1097-1136, November.
    14. Ellis, Andrew, 2018. "Foundations for optimal inattention," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 173(C), pages 56-94.
    15. Paola Manzini & Marco Mariotti, 2007. "Sequentially Rationalizable Choice," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 97(5), pages 1824-1839, December.
    16. Mert Kimya, 2018. "Choice, Consideration Sets, and Attribute Filters," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 10(4), pages 223-247, November.
    17. Jesper Armouti-Hansen & Christopher Kops, 2018. "This or that? Sequential rationalization of indecisive choice behavior," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 84(4), pages 507-524, June.
    18. Minoru Sakaguchi & Vladimir V. Mazalov, 2004. "A non-zero-sum no-information best-choice game," Mathematical Methods of Operations Research, Springer;Gesellschaft für Operations Research (GOR);Nederlands Genootschap voor Besliskunde (NGB), vol. 60(3), pages 437-451, December.
    19. repec:cup:judgdm:v:9:y:2014:i:5:p:403-419 is not listed on IDEAS
    20. Leandro Carvalho & Dan Silverman, 2019. "Complexity and Sophistication," NBER Working Papers 26036, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    21. Hefti, Andreas, 2018. "Limited attention, competition and welfare," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 178(C), pages 318-359.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Juan Lleras & Yusufcan Masatlioglu & Daisuke Nakajima & Erkut Ozbay, 2021. "Path-Independent Consideration," Games, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-10, March.
    2. Geng, Sen & Özbay, Erkut Y., 2021. "Shortlisting procedure with a limited capacity," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 94(C).
    3. Kashaev, Nail & Aguiar, Victor H., 2022. "A random attention and utility model," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 204(C).
    4. Yuta Inoue, 2020. "Growing Consideration," Working Papers 2003, Waseda University, Faculty of Political Science and Economics.
    5. Yuta Inoue & Koji Shirai, 2018. "Limited consideration and limited data: revealed preference tests and observable restrictions," Discussion Paper Series 176, School of Economics, Kwansei Gakuin University, revised Mar 2018.
    6. Guy Barokas & Burak Ünveren, 2022. "Impressionable Rational Choice: Revealed-Preference Theory with Framing Effects," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 10(23), pages 1-19, November.
    7. Yuta Inoue & Koji Shirai, 2018. "Limited consideration and limited data: revealed preference tests and observable restrictions," Discussion Paper Series 176-2, School of Economics, Kwansei Gakuin University, revised Aug 2019.
    8. Abhinash Borah & Christopher Kops, 2019. "Rational choices: an ecological approach," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 86(3), pages 401-420, May.
    9. Salvador Barberà & Geoffroy de Clippel & Alejandro Neme & Kareen Rozen, 2022. "Order-k rationality," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 73(4), pages 1135-1153, June.
    10. Gian Caspari & Manshu Khanna, 2021. "Non-Standard Choice in Matching Markets," Papers 2111.06815, arXiv.org.
    11. 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.
    12. Bleile, Jörg, 2016. "Limited Attention in Case-Based Belief Formation," Center for Mathematical Economics Working Papers 518, Center for Mathematical Economics, Bielefeld University.
    13. Demirkan, Yusufcan & Kimya, Mert, 2020. "Hazard rate, stochastic choice and consideration sets," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 142-150.
    14. Kops, Christopher, 2022. "Cluster-shortlisted choice," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 102(C).
    15. Domenico Cantone & Alfio Giarlotta & Stephen Watson, 2019. "Congruence relations on a choice space," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 52(2), pages 247-294, February.
    16. Yuta Inoue, 2020. "Rationalizing choice functions with a weak preference," Working Papers 2004, Waseda University, Faculty of Political Science and Economics.
    17. Ahumada, Alonso & Ülkü, Levent, 2018. "Luce rule with limited consideration," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 52-56.
    18. Yuta Inoue & Koji Shirai, 2020. "On the observable restrictions of limited consideration models: theory and application," Discussion Paper Series 217, School of Economics, Kwansei Gakuin University.
    19. Geng, Sen, 2022. "Limited consideration model with a trigger or a capacity," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 101(C).
    20. Guy Barokas, 2020. "Identifying changing taste from demand data via golden eggs," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 54(1), pages 47-68, January.

    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:gam:jmathe:v:8:y:2020:i:2:p:199-:d:317036. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.