IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/iza/izadps/dp3377.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

A Million Answers to Twenty Questions: Choosing by Checklist

Author

Listed:
  • Mandler, Michael

    (Royal Holloway, University of London)

  • Manzini, Paola

    (University of Bristol)

  • Mariotti, Marco

    (Queen Mary, University of London)

Abstract

Many decision models in marketing science and psychology assume that a consumer chooses by proceeding sequentially through a checklist of desirable properties. These models are contrasted to the utility maximization model of rationality in economics. We show on the contrary that the two approaches are nearly equivalent. Moreover, the length of the shortest checklist as a proportion of the number of an agent’s indifference classes shrinks to 0 (at an exponential rate) as the number of indifference classes increases. Checklists therefore provide a rapid procedural basis for utility maximization.

Suggested Citation

  • Mandler, Michael & Manzini, Paola & Mariotti, Marco, 2008. "A Million Answers to Twenty Questions: Choosing by Checklist," IZA Discussion Papers 3377, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    • Handle: RePEc:iza:izadps:dp3377
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://docs.iza.org/dp3377.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Michael Yee & Ely Dahan & John R. Hauser & James Orlin, 2007. "Greedoid-Based Noncompensatory Inference," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(4), pages 532-549, 07-08.
    2. Houy, Nicolas & Tadenuma, Koichi, 2009. "Lexicographic compositions of multiple criteria for decision making," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 144(4), pages 1770-1782, July.
    3. Paola Manzini & Marco Mariotti, 2007. "Sequentially Rationalizable Choice," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 97(5), pages 1824-1839, December.
    4. , & ,, 2006. "A model of choice from lists," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 1(1), pages 3-17, March.
    5. Peter C. Fishburn, 1974. "Exceptional Paper--Lexicographic Orders, Utilities and Decision Rules: A Survey," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 20(11), pages 1442-1471, July.
    6. Rubinstein, Ariel, 1996. "Why Are Certain Properties of Binary Relations Relatively More Common in Natural Language?," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 64(2), pages 343-355, March.
    7. Kelvin J. Lancaster, 1966. "A New Approach to Consumer Theory," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 74, pages 132-132.
    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. Bleile, Jörg, 2016. "Limited Attention in Case-Based Belief Formation," Center for Mathematical Economics Working Papers 518, Center for Mathematical Economics, Bielefeld University.
    2. Michael Mandler, 2021. "The lexicographic method in preference theory," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 71(2), pages 553-577, March.
    3. Mandler, Michael, 2015. "Rational agents are the quickest," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 155(C), pages 206-233.
    4. García-Sanz, María D. & Alcantud, José Carlos R., 2015. "Sequential rationalization of multivalued choice," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 29-33.
    5. Salvador Barberà & Alejandro Neme, 2015. "Ordinal Relative Satisficing Behavior: Theory and Experiments," Working Papers 790, Barcelona School of Economics.
    6. 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.
    7. Christopher Kops, 2018. "(F)Lexicographic shortlist method," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 65(1), pages 79-97, January.
    8. Andrew Caplin & Mark Dean & Daniel Martin, 2011. "Search and Satisficing," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 101(7), pages 2899-2922, December.
    9. Petri, Henrik & Voorneveld, Mark, 2016. "Characterizing lexicographic preferences," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 54-61.
    10. Boissonnet, Niels & Ghersengorin, Alexis & Gleyze, Simon, 2020. "Revealed Deliberate Preference Changes," MPRA Paper 101756, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    11. Manzini, Paola & Mariotti, Marco & Tyson, Christopher J., 2016. "Partial knowledge restrictions on the two-stage threshold model of choice," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 41-47.
    12. Xiaosheng Mu, 2021. "Sequential Choice with Incomplete Preferences," Working Papers 2021-35, Princeton University. Economics Department..
    13. Christopher Tyson, 2015. "Satisficing behavior with a secondary criterion," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 44(3), pages 639-661, March.
    14. Gent Bajraj & Levent Ülkü, 2015. "Choosing two finalists and the winner," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 45(4), pages 729-744, December.
    15. Alfio Giarlotta & Angelo Petralia & Stephen Watson, 2022. "Semantics meets attractiveness: Choice by salience," Papers 2204.08798, arXiv.org, revised Aug 2022.
    16. de Clippel, Geoffroy & Rozen, Kareen, 2021. "Bounded rationality and limited datasets," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 16(2), May.
    17. Hauser, John R., 2014. "Consideration-set heuristics," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 67(8), pages 1688-1699.
    18. Yusufcan Masatlioglu & Daisuke Nakajima & Erkut Y. Ozbay, 2012. "Revealed Attention," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 102(5), pages 2183-2205, August.
    19. Pinger, Pia & Ruhmer-Krell, Isabel & Schumacher, Heiner, 2016. "The compromise effect in action: Lessons from a restaurant's menu," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 14-34.
    20. Caplin, Andrew, 2014. "Rational inattention and revealed preference: The data-theoretic approach to economic modeling," Research in Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(4), pages 295-305.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    bounded rationality; procedural rationality; utility maximization; choice behavior;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D01 - Microeconomics - - General - - - Microeconomic Behavior: Underlying Principles

    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:iza:izadps:dp3377. 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: Holger Hinte (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/izaaade.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.