IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/mateco/v119y2025ics0304406825000692.html

Revealed preference axioms for endogenous consideration set formation

Author

Listed:
  • Honda, Edward
  • Ye, Lintao

Abstract

We consider a setting in which the consideration sets being formed by a decision maker are observable. We analyze the necessary and sufficient conditions under which the observed sets are consistent with endogenous consideration set formation. In particular, we rationalize the consideration sets as being optimally formed by a decision maker who faces costly attention and is forced to choose a subset of alternatives to pay attention to. We show that axioms similar to those from revealed preference theory allow us to do this. The most general model is characterized by a condition resembling the Strong Axiom applied on a domain of sets rather than individual alternatives. Since the idea of observable consideration sets seems realistic in a random choice framework in which we can interpret zero probability of being chosen as the alternative being omitted from the consideration set, we apply our result to this setting using the Logit model. This results in a representation theorem for a generalized version of the Logit model.

Suggested Citation

  • Honda, Edward & Ye, Lintao, 2025. "Revealed preference axioms for endogenous consideration set formation," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 119(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:mateco:v:119:y:2025:i:c:s0304406825000692
    DOI: 10.1016/j.jmateco.2025.103152
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304406825000692
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.jmateco.2025.103152?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
    ---><---

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

    for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ahumada, Alonso & Ülkü, Levent, 2018. "Luce rule with limited consideration," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 52-56.
    2. Aguiar, Victor H. & Boccardi, Maria Jose & Dean, Mark, 2016. "Satisficing and stochastic choice," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 166(C), pages 445-482.
    3. Paola Manzini & Marco Mariotti, 2012. "Categorize Then Choose: Boundedly Rational Choice And Welfare," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 10(5), pages 1141-1165, October.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. Horan, Sean, 2021. "Stochastic semi-orders," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 192(C).
    7. 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.
    8. Thomas Demuynck & Christian Seel, 2018. "Revealed Preference with Limited Consideration," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 10(1), pages 102-131, February.
    9. Kfir Eliaz & Michael Richter & Ariel Rubinstein, 2011. "Choosing the two finalists," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 46(2), pages 211-219, February.
    10. Amartya K. Sen, 1971. "Choice Functions and Revealed Preference," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 38(3), pages 307-317.
    11. Cerreia-Vioglio, Simone & Lindberg, Per Olov & Maccheroni, Fabio & Marinacci, Massimo & Rustichini, Aldo, 2021. "A canon of probabilistic rationality," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 196(C).
    12. 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.
    13. Paola Manzini & Marco Mariotti, 2007. "Sequentially Rationalizable Choice," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 97(5), pages 1824-1839, December.
    14. Andrew Caplin & Mark Dean & John Leahy, 2019. "Rational Inattention, Optimal Consideration Sets, and Stochastic Choice," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 86(3), pages 1061-1094.
    15. Paola Manzini & Marco Mariotti, 2014. "Stochastic Choice and Consideration Sets," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 82(3), pages 1153-1176, May.
    16. Hauser, John R., 2014. "Consideration-set heuristics," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 67(8), pages 1688-1699.
    17. Jean-Pierre Dubé & Ali Hortaçsu & Joonhwi Joo, 2021. "Random-Coefficients Logit Demand Estimation with Zero-Valued Market Shares," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 40(4), pages 637-660, July.
    18. Koji Yokote & Isa E. Hafalir & Fuhito Kojima & M. Bumin Yenmez, 2023. "Rationalizing Path-Independent Choice Rules," Papers 2303.00892, arXiv.org, revised May 2024.
    19. Sippel, Reinhard, 1997. "An Experiment on the Pure Theory of Consumer's Behaviour," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 107(444), pages 1431-1444, September.
    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.
    21. WILLIAM J. McCAUSLAND, 2009. "Random Consumer Demand," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 76(301), pages 89-107, February.
    22. Richard L. Brady & John Rehbeck, 2016. "Menu‐Dependent Stochastic Feasibility," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 84, pages 1203-1223, May.
    23. Faruk Gul & Wolfgang Pesendorfer, 2001. "Temptation and Self-Control," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 69(6), pages 1403-1435, November.
    24. Kovach, Matthew & Ülkü, Levent, 2020. "Satisficing with a variable threshold," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 67-76.
    25. Klaus Nehring, 1997. "Rational choice and revealed preference without binariness," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 14(3), pages 403-425.
    26. ,, 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. Caliari, Daniele, 2023. "Behavioural welfare analysis and revealed preference: Theory and experimental evidence," Discussion Papers, Research Unit: Economics of Change SP II 2023-303, WZB Berlin Social Science Center.
    2. Daniele Caliari & Henrik Petri, 2025. "The Luce Model, Regularity, and Choice Overload," Papers 2502.21063, arXiv.org.
    3. Kashaev, Nail & Aguiar, Victor H., 2022. "A random attention and utility model," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 204(C).
    4. Masatlioglu, Yusufcan & Vu, Tri Phu, 2024. "Growing attention," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 222(C).
    5. Demirkan, Yusufcan & Kimya, Mert, 2020. "Hazard rate, stochastic choice and consideration sets," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 142-150.
    6. Kops, Christopher, 2022. "Cluster-shortlisted choice," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 102(C).
    7. Aguiar, Victor H. & Kimya, Mert, 2019. "Adaptive stochastic search," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 74-83.
    8. Carpentiere, Davide & Petralia, Angelo Enrico, 2025. "Limited attention and models of choice: A behavioral equivalence," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 138(C).
    9. Kovach, Matthew & Suleymanov, Elchin, 2023. "Reference dependence and random attention," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 215(C), pages 421-441.
    10. Alfio Giarlotta & Angelo Petralia, 2024. "Simon’s bounded rationality," Decisions in Economics and Finance, Springer;Associazione per la Matematica, vol. 47(1), pages 327-346, June.
    11. Sean Duffy & John Smith, 2025. "An economist and a psychologist form a line: What can imperfect perception of length tell us about stochastic choice?," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 99(3), pages 701-734, November.
    12. Kovach, Matthew & Ülkü, Levent, 2020. "Satisficing with a variable threshold," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 67-76.
    13. Duffy, Sean & Gussman, Steven & Smith, John, 2021. "Visual judgments of length in the economics laboratory: Are there brains in stochastic choice?," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 93(C).
    14. Avner Seror, 2026. "A Random Rule Model," Papers 2603.04105, arXiv.org, revised Apr 2026.
    15. Geng, Sen & Özbay, Erkut Y., 2021. "Shortlisting procedure with a limited capacity," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 94(C).
    16. Davide Carpentiere & Angelo Petralia, 2025. "Limited attention and models of choice: A behavioral equivalence," Papers 2502.14879, arXiv.org, revised Jul 2025.
    17. Eileen Tipoe & Abi Adams & Ian Crawford, 2022. "Revealed preference analysis and bounded rationality [Consume now or later? Time inconsistency, collective choice and revealed preference]," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 74(2), pages 313-332.
    18. Rehbeck, John, 2024. "A menu dependent Luce model with a numeraire," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 110(C).
    19. Geng, Sen, 2022. "Limited consideration model with a trigger or a capacity," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 101(C).
    20. Gibbard, Peter, 2021. "Disentangling preferences and limited attention: Random-utility models with consideration sets," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 94(C).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • D01 - Microeconomics - - General - - - Microeconomic Behavior: Underlying Principles
    • D81 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Criteria for Decision-Making under Risk and Uncertainty
    • D91 - Microeconomics - - Micro-Based Behavioral Economics - - - Role and Effects of Psychological, Emotional, Social, and Cognitive Factors on Decision Making

    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:eee:mateco:v:119:y:2025:i:c:s0304406825000692. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jmateco .

    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.