IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/aea/aecrev/v101y2011i2p724-48.html

Procedural Analysis of Choice Rules with Applications to Bounded Rationality

Author

Listed:
  • Yuval Salant

Abstract

I study how limited abilities to process information affect choice behavior. I model the decision-making process by an automaton, and measure the complexity of a specific choice rule by the minimal number of states an automaton implementing the rule uses to process information. I establish that any choice rule that is less complicated than utility maximization displays framing effects. I then prove that choice rules that result from an optimal trade-off between maximizing utility and minimizing complexity are history-dependent satisficing procedures that display primacy and recency effects. (JEL D01, D03, D11, D83)

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:aea:aecrev:v:101:y:2011:i:2:p:724-48
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/aer.101.2.724
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to AEA members and institutional subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to

    for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Taradas Bandyopadhyay, 1988. "Revealed Preference Theory, Ordering and the Axiom of Sequential Path Independence," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 55(2), pages 343-351.
    2. Kalai, Gil, 2003. "Learnability and rationality of choice," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 113(1), pages 104-117, November.
    3. Neyman, Abraham, 1985. "Bounded complexity justifies cooperation in the finitely repeated prisoners' dilemma," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 19(3), pages 227-229.
    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. David Baron & Ehud Kalai, 1990. "Dividing a Cake by Majority: The Simplest Equilibria," Discussion Papers 919, Northwestern University, Center for Mathematical Studies in Economics and Management Science.
    2. Chris Fields & James F. Glazebrook, 2024. "Nash Equilibria and Undecidability in Generic Physical Interactions—A Free Energy Perspective," Games, MDPI, vol. 15(5), pages 1-22, August.
    3. Beigman, Eyal, 2010. "Simple games with many effective voters," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 68(1), pages 15-22, January.
    4. Joshua M. Epstein, 2007. "Agent-Based Computational Models and Generative Social Science," Introductory Chapters, in: Generative Social Science Studies in Agent-Based Computational Modeling, Princeton University Press.
    5. Jehiel, Philippe, 1998. "Learning to Play Limited Forecast Equilibria," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 22(2), pages 274-298, February.
    6. Sent, Esther-Mirjam, 2004. "The legacy of Herbert Simon in game theory," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 53(3), pages 303-317, March.
    7. van Damme, E.E.C., 1995. "Game theory : The next stage," Other publications TiSEM 7779b0f9-bef5-45c7-ae6b-7, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    8. O. Gossner, 2000. "Sharing a long secret in a few public words," Thema Working Papers 2000-15, THEMA (Théorie Economique, Modélisation et Applications), CY Cergy-Paris University, ESSEC and CNRS.
    9. GOSSNER, Olivier, 1998. "Repeated games played by cryptographically sophisticated players," LIDAM Discussion Papers CORE 1998035, Université catholique de Louvain, Center for Operations Research and Econometrics (CORE).
    10. Jehiel, Philippe, 2005. "Analogy-based expectation equilibrium," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 123(2), pages 81-104, August.
    11. Ho, Teck-Hua, 1996. "Finite automata play repeated prisoner's dilemma with information processing costs," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 20(1-3), pages 173-207.
    12. Kalai, Ehud & Stanford, William, 1988. "Finite Rationality and Interpersonal Complexity in Repeated Games," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 56(2), pages 397-410, March.
    13. Beal, Sylvain & Querou, Nicolas, 2007. "Bounded rationality and repeated network formation," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 54(1), pages 71-89, July.
    14. Solan, Eilon, 2018. "Acceptable strategy profiles in stochastic games," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 523-540.
    15. He, Junnan, 2011. "A Generalization of Sen’s Unification Theorem: Avoiding the Necessity of Pairs and Triplets," MPRA Paper 37094, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    16. Horaguchi, Haruo, 1996. "The role of information processing cost as the foundation of bounded rationality in game theory," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 51(3), pages 287-294, June.
    17. Steven M. Shugan, 2005. "Comments on Competitive Responsiveness," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 24(1), pages 3-7.
    18. Neyman, Abraham & Okada, Daijiro, 2009. "Growth of strategy sets, entropy, and nonstationary bounded recall," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 66(1), pages 404-425, May.
    19. Justin Smith, 1999. "Strategic Cost and ‘Matching Pennies’," Working Papers 99-07-048, Santa Fe Institute.
    20. Hitoshi Matsushima, 2012. "Finitely Repeated Prisoners' Dilemma With Small Fines: The Penance Contract," The Japanese Economic Review, Japanese Economic Association, vol. 63(3), pages 333-347, September.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • D01 - Microeconomics - - General - - - Microeconomic Behavior: Underlying Principles
    • D03 - Microeconomics - - General - - - Behavioral Microeconomics: Underlying Principles
    • D11 - Microeconomics - - Household Behavior - - - Consumer Economics: Theory
    • D83 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Search; Learning; Information and Knowledge; Communication; Belief; Unawareness

    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:aea:aecrev:v:101:y:2011:i:2:p:724-48. 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: Michael P. Albert (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aeaaaea.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.