IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/matsoc/v93y2018icp67-76.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The perception-adjusted Luce model

Author

Listed:
  • Echenique, Federico
  • Saito, Kota
  • Tserenjigmid, Gerelt

Abstract

We develop an axiomatic theory of random choice that builds on Luce’s (1959) model to incorporate a role for perception. We capture the role of perception through perception priorities; priorities that determine whether an object or alternative is perceived sooner or later than other alternatives. We identify agents’ perception priorities from their violations of Luce’s axiom of independence from irrelevant alternatives (IIA). The direction of the violation of IIA implies an orientation of agents’ priority rankings. We adjust choice probabilities to account for the effects of perception, and impose that adjusted choice probabilities satisfy IIA. So all violations of IIA are accounted for by the perception order. The theory can explain some very well-documented behavioral phenomena in individual choice.

Suggested Citation

  • Echenique, Federico & Saito, Kota & Tserenjigmid, Gerelt, 2018. "The perception-adjusted Luce model," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 67-76.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:matsoc:v:93:y:2018:i:c:p:67-76
    DOI: 10.1016/j.mathsocsci.2018.02.004
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0165489618300167
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Simonson, Itamar, 1989. " Choice Based on Reasons: The Case of Attraction and Compromise Effects," Journal of Consumer Research, Oxford University Press, vol. 16(2), pages 158-174, September.
    2. Jörg Rieskamp & Jerome R. Busemeyer & Barbara A. Mellers, 2006. "Extending the Bounds of Rationality: Evidence and Theories of Preferential Choice," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 44(3), pages 631-661, September.
    3. Paola Manzini & Marco Mariotti, 2014. "Stochastic Choice and Consideration Sets," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 82(3), pages 1153-1176, May.
    4. Barbera, Salvador & Pattanaik, Prasanta K, 1986. "Falmagne and the Rationalizability of Stochastic Choices in Terms of Random Orderings," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 54(3), pages 707-715, May.
    5. Herne, Kaisa, 1997. "Decoy alternatives in policy choices: Asymmetric domination and compromise effects," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 13(3), pages 575-589, September.
    6. Loomes, Graham & Starmer, Chris & Sugden, Robert, 1991. "Observing Violations of Transitivity by Experimental Methods," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 59(2), pages 425-439, March.
    7. Drew Fudenberg & Ryota Iijima & Tomasz Strzalecki, 2015. "Stochastic Choice and Revealed Perturbed Utility," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 83, pages 2371-2409, November.
    8. Faruk Gul & Paulo Natenzon & Wolfgang Pesendorfer, 2014. "Random Choice as Behavioral Optimization," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 82, pages 1873-1912, September.
    9. Huber, Joel & Payne, John W & Puto, Christopher, 1982. " Adding Asymmetrically Dominated Alternatives: Violations of Regularity and the Similarity Hypothesis," Journal of Consumer Research, Oxford University Press, vol. 9(1), pages 90-98, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Tserenjigmid, Gerelt, 2019. "Choosing with the worst in mind: A reference-dependent model," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 631-652.
    2. Steverson, Kai & Brandenburger, Adam & Glimcher, Paul, 2019. "Choice-theoretic foundations of the divisive normalization model," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 164(C), pages 148-165.
    3. Flores, Alvaro & Berbeglia, Gerardo & Van Hentenryck, Pascal, 2019. "Assortment optimization under the Sequential Multinomial Logit Model," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 273(3), pages 1052-1064.
    4. Federico Echenique & Kota Saito, 2019. "General Luce model," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 68(4), pages 811-826, November.
    5. Horan, Sean, 2019. "Random consideration and choice: A case study of “default” options," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 73-84.
    6. Duffy, Sean & Gussman, Steven & Smith, John, 2019. "Judgments of length in the economics laboratory: Are there brains in choice?," MPRA Paper 93126, University Library of Munich, Germany.

    More about this item

    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:matsoc:v:93:y:2018:i:c:p:67-76. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dana Niculescu). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/inca/505565 .

    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 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.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.