IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/pri/econom/2019-29.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Amendment Voting with Incomplete Preferences

Author

Listed:
  • Xiaosheng Mu

    (Columbia University)

Abstract

We study the outcome of the amendment voting procedure based on a potentially incomplete preference relation. A decision-maker evaluates candidates in a list and iteratively updates her choice by comparing the status-quo to the next candidate. She favors the status-quo when the two candidates are incomparable according to her un-derlying preference. Developing a revealed preference approach; we characterize all choice functions that can arise from such a procedure and discuss to what extent the underlying preference can be identified from observed choices.

Suggested Citation

  • Xiaosheng Mu, 2019. "Amendment Voting with Incomplete Preferences," Working Papers 2019-29, Princeton University. Economics Department..
    • Handle: RePEc:pri:econom:2019-29
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://uploads.strikinglycdn.com/files/305af47b-841e-4711-82a0-54c0ce9bc8fe/Amendment_voting.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Avraham Beja & Itzhak Gilboa, 1989. "Numerical Representations of Imperfectly Ordered Preferences (A Unified Geometric Exposition," Discussion Papers 836, Northwestern University, Center for Mathematical Studies in Economics and Management Science.
    2. Apesteguia, Jose & Ballester, Miguel A., 2013. "Choice by sequential procedures," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 77(1), pages 90-99.
    3. Dubra, Juan & Maccheroni, Fabio & Ok, Efe A., 2004. "Expected utility theory without the completeness axiom," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 115(1), pages 118-133, March.
    4. Pedro Bordalo & Nicola Gennaioli & Andrei Shleifer, 2013. "Salience and Consumer Choice," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 121(5), pages 803-843.
    5. Gil Kalai & Ariel Rubinstein & Ran Spiegler, 2002. "Rationalizing Choice Functions By Multiple Rationales," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 70(6), pages 2481-2488, November.
    6. Amos Tversky & Daniel Kahneman, 1991. "Loss Aversion in Riskless Choice: A Reference-Dependent Model," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 106(4), pages 1039-1061.
    7. Pedro Bordalo & Nicola Gennaioli & Andrei Shleifer, 2020. "Memory, Attention, and Choice," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 135(3), pages 1399-1442.
    8. Fishburn, Peter C, 1975. "Semiorders and Choice Functions," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 43(5-6), pages 975-977, Sept.-Nov.
    9. , & ,, 2013. "Choice by iterative search," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 8(3), September.
    10. Guney, Begum, 2014. "A theory of iterative choice in lists," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 26-32.
    11. 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.
    12. Jamison, Dean T & Lau, Lawrence J, 1973. "Semiorders and the Theory of Choice," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 41(5), pages 901-912, September.
    13. Elena Reutskaja & Rosemarie Nagel & Colin F. Camerer & Antonio Rangel, 2011. "Search Dynamics in Consumer Choice under Time Pressure: An Eye-Tracking Study," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 101(2), pages 900-926, April.
    14. 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.
    15. Juan Dubra & Fabio Maccheroni & Efe A. Ok, 2004. "Expected Utility Without the Completeness Axiom," Yale School of Management Working Papers ysm404, Yale School of Management.
    16. Paola Manzini & Marco Mariotti, 2007. "Sequentially Rationalizable Choice," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 97(5), pages 1824-1839, December.
    17. Yuval Salant, 2011. "Procedural Analysis of Choice Rules with Applications to Bounded Rationality," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 101(2), pages 724-748, April.
    18. ,, 2016. "List-rationalizable choice," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 11(2), May.
    19. ,, 2016. "Monotone threshold representations," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 11(3), September.
    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. Xiaosheng Mu, 2021. "Sequential Choice with Incomplete Preferences," Working Papers 2021-35, Princeton University. Economics Department..
    2. Eddie Dekel & Barton L. Lipman, 2010. "How (Not) to Do Decision Theory," Annual Review of Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 2(1), pages 257-282, September.
    3. Guy Barokas & Burak Ünveren, 2022. "Impressionable Rational Choice: Revealed-Preference Theory with Framing Effects," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 10(23), pages 1-19, November.
    4. Özgür Kıbrıs & Yusufcan Masatlioglu & Elchin Suleymanov, 2023. "A theory of reference point formation," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 75(1), pages 137-166, January.
    5. Guney, Begum, 2014. "A theory of iterative choice in lists," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 26-32.
    6. Hassan Nosratabadi, 2017. "Referential Revealed Preference Theory," Departmental Working Papers 201707, Rutgers University, Department of Economics.
    7. Dinko Dimitrov & Saptarshi Mukherjee & Nozomu Muto, 2016. "‘Divide-and-choose’ in list-based decision problems," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 81(1), pages 17-31, June.
    8. Andrew Caplin & Daniel Martin, 2015. "A Testable Theory of Imperfect Perception," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 125(582), pages 184-202, February.
    9. 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.
    10. 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.
    11. 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.
    12. García-Sanz, María D. & Alcantud, José Carlos R., 2015. "Sequential rationalization of multivalued choice," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 29-33.
    13. Heller, Yuval, 2012. "Justifiable choice," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 76(2), pages 375-390.
    14. 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.
    15. Dimitrov, Dinko & Mukherjee, Saptarshi & Muto, Nozomu & 無藤, 望, 2013. "List-based decision problems," Discussion Papers 2013-02, Graduate School of Economics, Hitotsubashi University.
    16. 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.
    17. Davide Carpentiere & Angelo Petralia, 2023. "Identification of consideration sets from choice data," Papers 2302.00978, arXiv.org, revised Mar 2024.
    18. 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.
    19. Manzini, Paola & Mariotti, Marco & Tyson, Christopher J, 2015. "Partial Knowledge Restrictions on theTwo-Stage Threshold Model of Choice," 2007 Annual Meeting, July 29-August 1, 2007, Portland, Oregon TN 2015-58, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    20. Manzini, Paola & Mariotti, Marco & Tyson, Christopher J., 2011. "Manipulation of Choice Behavior," IZA Discussion Papers 5891, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Amendment voting; Choice from lists; Status-quo bias; Revealed-preference;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D11 - Microeconomics - - Household Behavior - - - Consumer Economics: Theory

    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:pri:econom:2019-29. 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: Bobray Bordelon (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://economics.princeton.edu/working-papers/ .

    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.