IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/fip/feddwp/1813.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Rationally Inattentive Consumer: An Experiment

Author

Listed:
  • Andrea Civelli
  • Cary Deck
  • Justin D. LeBlanc
  • Antonella Tutino

Abstract

This paper presents a laboratory experiment that directly tests the theoretical predictions of consumption choices under rational inattention. Subjects are asked to select consumption when income is random. They can optimally decide to reduce uncertainty about income by acquiring signals about it. The informativeness of the signals directly relates to the cognitive effort required to process the information. We find that subjects? behavior is largely in line with the predictions of the theory: 1) Subjects optimally make stochastic consumption choices; 2) They respond to incentives and changes in the economic environment by varying their attention and consumption; 3) They respond asymmetrically to positive and negative shocks to income, with negative shocks triggering stronger and faster reactions than positive shocks.

Suggested Citation

  • Andrea Civelli & Cary Deck & Justin D. LeBlanc & Antonella Tutino, 2018. "Rationally Inattentive Consumer: An Experiment," Working Papers 1813, Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas.
  • Handle: RePEc:fip:feddwp:1813
    DOI: 10.24149/wp1813
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.dallasfed.org/-/media/documents/research/papers/2018/wp1813.pdf
    File Function: Full text
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.24149/wp1813?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. Kelly Shue & Erzo F. P. Luttmer, 2009. "Who Misvotes? The Effect of Differential Cognition Costs on Election Outcomes," American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, American Economic Association, vol. 1(1), pages 229-257, February.
    4. Raj Chetty & Adam Looney & Kory Kroft, 2009. "Salience and Taxation: Theory and Evidence," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 99(4), pages 1145-1177, September.
    5. Civelli, Andrea & Deck, Cary, 2018. "A Flexible and Customizable Method for Assessing Cognitive Abilities," Review of Behavioral Economics, now publishers, vol. 5(2), pages 123-147, September.
    6. Cheremukhin, Anton & Popova, Anna & Tutino, Antonella, 2015. "A theory of discrete choice with information costs," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 34-50.
    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. Dewan, Ambuj & Neligh, Nathaniel, 2020. "Estimating information cost functions in models of rational inattention," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 187(C).
    2. Xavier Gabaix, 2017. "Behavioral Inattention," NBER Working Papers 24096, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    3. Goldin, Jacob & Reck, Daniel, 2018. "Rationalizations and mistakes: optimal policy with normative ambiguity," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 89237, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    4. Stefano DellaVigna, 2009. "Psychology and Economics: Evidence from the Field," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 47(2), pages 315-372, June.
    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. Jacob Goldin & Tatiana Homonoff, 2013. "Smoke Gets in Your Eyes: Cigarette Tax Salience and Regressivity," American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, American Economic Association, vol. 5(1), pages 302-336, February.
    7. Nicolas Ajzenman & Ruben Durante, 2019. "Salience and Accountability: School Infrastructureand Last-Minute Electoral Punishment," School of Government Working Papers 201905, Universidad Torcuato Di Tella.
    8. Jason Abaluck & Mauricio Caceres Bravo & Peter Hull: & Amanda Starc, 2021. "Mortality Effects and Choice Across Private Health Insurance Plans," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 136(3), pages 1557-1610.
    9. Stefano Banfi & Benjamin Villena-Roldan & Sekyu Choi, 2018. "Deconstructing job search behavior," 2018 Meeting Papers 368, Society for Economic Dynamics.
    10. Johannes G. Jaspersen & Marc A. Ragin & Justin R. Sydnor, 2019. "Predicting Insurance Demand from Risk Attitudes," NBER Working Papers 26508, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    11. Tamara Bischof & Christian P.R. Schmid, 2018. "Consumer price sensitivity and health plan choice in a regulated competition setting," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 27(9), pages 1366-1379, September.
    12. Gibbard, Peter, 2021. "Disentangling preferences and limited attention: Random-utility models with consideration sets," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 94(C).
    13. Kovach, Matthew & Suleymanov, Elchin, 2023. "Reference dependence and random attention," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 215(C), pages 421-441.
    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. 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.
    16. Ito, Yuki & Hara, Konan & Kobayashi, Yasuki, 2020. "The effect of inertia on brand-name versus generic drug choices," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 172(C), pages 364-379.
    17. Yingmei Tang & Huifang Cai & Rongmao Liu, 2022. "Will marketing strategies affect farmers’ preferences and willingness to pay for catastrophe insurance? Evidence from a choice experiment in China," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 24(1), pages 1376-1389, January.
    18. Walter Beckert & Elaine Kelly, 2017. "Divided by choice? Private providers, patient choice and hospital sorting in the English National Health service," IFS Working Papers W17/15, Institute for Fiscal Studies.
    19. Xiao Lin, 2020. "Risk awareness and adverse selection in catastrophe insurance: Evidence from California’s residential earthquake insurance market," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 61(1), pages 43-65, August.
    20. 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.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Rational Inattention; Experimental Evidence; information processing capacity; Consumption;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C91 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Individual Behavior
    • D11 - Microeconomics - - Household Behavior - - - Consumer Economics: Theory
    • D8 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty
    • E20 - Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics - - Consumption, Saving, Production, Employment, and Investment - - - General (includes Measurement and Data)

    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:fip:feddwp:1813. 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: Amy Chapman (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/frbdaus.html .

    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.