IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/arx/papers/1904.06742.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Peer Effects in Random Consideration Sets

Author

Listed:
  • Nail Kashaev
  • Natalia Lazzati

Abstract

We develop a dynamic model of discrete choice that incorporates peer effects into random consideration sets. We characterize the equilibrium behavior and study the empirical content of the model. In our setup, changes in the choices of friends affect the distribution of the consideration sets. We exploit this variation to recover the ranking of preferences, attention mechanisms, and network connections. These nonparametric identification results allow unrestricted heterogeneity across people and do not rely on the variation of either covariates or the set of available options. Our methodology leads to a maximum-likelihood estimator that performs well in simulations. We apply our results to an experimental dataset that has been designed to study the visual focus of attention.

Suggested Citation

  • Nail Kashaev & Natalia Lazzati, 2019. "Peer Effects in Random Consideration Sets," Papers 1904.06742, arXiv.org, revised May 2021.
    • Handle: RePEc:arx:papers:1904.06742
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1904.06742
    File Function: Latest version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. de Paula, Aureo & Rasul, Imran & Souza, Pedro, 2018. "Identifying Network Ties from Panel Data: Theory and an Application to Tax Competition," CEPR Discussion Papers 12792, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    2. Blume Lawrence E., 1995. "The Statistical Mechanics of Best-Response Strategy Revision," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 11(2), pages 111-145, November.
    3. Lawrence E. Blume & William A. Brock & Steven N. Durlauf & Rajshri Jayaraman, 2015. "Linear Social Interactions Models," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 123(2), pages 444-496.
    4. Yusufcan Masatlioglu & Daisuke Nakajima & Erkut Y. Ozbay, 2012. "Revealed Attention," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 102(5), pages 2183-2205, August.
    5. Kaiser, Mark S. & Cressie, Noel, 2000. "The Construction of Multivariate Distributions from Markov Random Fields," Journal of Multivariate Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 73(2), pages 199-220, May.
    6. Aguiar, Victor H. & Boccardi, Maria Jose & Dean, Mark, 2016. "Satisficing and stochastic choice," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 166(C), pages 445-482.
    7. Paola Manzini & Marco Mariotti, 2014. "Stochastic Choice and Consideration Sets," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 82(3), pages 1153-1176, May.
    8. Horan, Sean, 2019. "Random consideration and choice: A case study of “default” options," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 73-84.
    9. Nitin Mehta & Surendra Rajiv & Kannan Srinivasan, 2003. "Price Uncertainty and Consumer Search: A Structural Model of Consideration Set Formation," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(1), pages 58-84, June.
    10. Aureo de Paula & Imran Rasul & Pedro CL Souza, 2018. "Recovering social networks from panel data: Identification, simulations and an application," Documentos de Trabajo 16173, The Latin American and Caribbean Economic Association (LACEA).
    11. Allen, Beth, 1982. "Some Stochastic Processes of Interdependent Demand and Technological Diffusion of an Innovation Exhibiting Externalities among Adopters," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 23(3), pages 595-608, October.
    12. Abhinash Borah & Christopher Kops, 2018. "Choice via Social Influence," Working Papers 06, Ashoka University, Department of Economics.
    13. 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.
    14. Martin Gaynor & Carol Propper & Stephan Seiler, 2016. "Free to Choose? Reform, Choice, and Consideration Sets in the English National Health Service," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 106(11), pages 3521-3557, November.
    15. Blume Lawrence E., 1993. "The Statistical Mechanics of Strategic Interaction," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 5(3), pages 387-424, July.
    16. Aguiar, Victor H., 2017. "Random categorization and bounded rationality," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 159(C), pages 46-52.
    17. Abhinash Borah & Christopher Kops, 2018. "Choice via Social Influence," Working Papers 1010, Ashoka University, Department of Economics.
    18. 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.
    19. Lawrence Blume & Steven Durlauf, 2003. "Equilibrium Concepts for Social Interaction Models," International Game Theory Review (IGTR), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 5(03), pages 193-209.
    20. Blevins, Jason R., 2017. "Identifying Restrictions For Finite Parameter Continuous Time Models With Discrete Time Data," Econometric Theory, Cambridge University Press, vol. 33(3), pages 739-754, June.
    21. Christopher T. Conlon & Julie Holland Mortimer, 2013. "Demand Estimation under Incomplete Product Availability," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 5(4), pages 1-30, November.
    22. 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.
    23. Richard L. Brady & John Rehbeck, 2016. "Menu‐Dependent Stochastic Feasibility," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 84, pages 1203-1223, May.
    24. 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.
    25. Pietro Bonaldi & Ali Hortaçsu & Jakub Kastl, 2015. "An Empirical Analysis of Funding Costs Spillovers in the EURO-zone with Application to Systemic Risk," NBER Working Papers 21462, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    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. 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.

    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. 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.
    2. Kovach, Matthew & Suleymanov, Elchin, 2023. "Reference dependence and random attention," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 215(C), pages 421-441.
    3. Gibbard, Peter, 2021. "Disentangling preferences and limited attention: Random-utility models with consideration sets," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 94(C).
    4. 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.
    5. Kashaev, Nail & Aguiar, Victor H., 2022. "A random attention and utility model," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 204(C).
    6. Demirkan, Yusufcan & Kimya, Mert, 2020. "Hazard rate, stochastic choice and consideration sets," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 142-150.
    7. 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.
    8. Ahumada, Alonso & Ülkü, Levent, 2018. "Luce rule with limited consideration," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 52-56.
    9. Aguiar, Victor H. & Kimya, Mert, 2019. "Adaptive stochastic search," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 74-83.
    10. Jason Abaluck & Giovanni Compiani, 2020. "A Method to Estimate Discrete Choice Models that is Robust to Consumer Search," NBER Working Papers 26849, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    11. 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.
    12. 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.
    13. Yegane, Ece, 2022. "Stochastic choice with limited memory," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 205(C).
    14. Ishii, Yuhta & Kovach, Matthew & Ülkü, Levent, 2021. "A model of stochastic choice from lists," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 96(C).
    15. Roy Allen & John Rehbeck, 2020. "Identification of Random Coefficient Latent Utility Models," Papers 2003.00276, arXiv.org.
    16. Victor H. Aguiar & Nail Kashaev, 2019. "Identification and Estimation of Discrete Choice Models with Unobserved Choice Sets," Papers 1907.04853, arXiv.org, revised Jun 2021.
    17. 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.
    18. Cristina Gualdani & Shruti Sinha, 2019. "Identification in discrete choice models with imperfect information," Papers 1911.04529, arXiv.org, revised Dec 2023.
    19. Kovach, Matthew & Ülkü, Levent, 2020. "Satisficing with a variable threshold," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 67-76.
    20. Gualdani, Cristina & Sinha, Shruti, 2019. "Identification and inference in discrete choice models with imperfect information," TSE Working Papers 19-1049, Toulouse School of Economics (TSE), revised Jun 2020.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:arx:papers:1904.06742. 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: arXiv administrators (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://arxiv.org/ .

    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.