IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/nea/journl/y2015i26p12-35.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Beyond Classical Rationality: Two-Stage Rationalization

Author

Listed:
  • Danilov, V.

    (The Central Economic Mathematical Institute RAS, Moscow, Russia)

Abstract

Numerous facts indicate that behaviour (choice) of economic agents does not satisfy strong criterions of rationality. One of the possible explanation is in that the choice goes in two (or more) sequential stages. In the first stage, one chooses a subset F(A) from an initial menu A. Then the best element (with respert to some linear order) is chosen from F(A) . The resulting choice is not rational in the classical sense. However it possesses some specific properties which distinguish it from arbitrary non-rational behaviour. In the paper we give a survey of recent works on two-stage choice. Axiomatic characteristics of such a choice are given depending on rationality conditions of the first step choice.

Suggested Citation

  • Danilov, V., 2015. "Beyond Classical Rationality: Two-Stage Rationalization," Journal of the New Economic Association, New Economic Association, vol. 26(2), pages 12-35.
    • Handle: RePEc:nea:journl:y:2015:i:26:p:12-35
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.econorus.org/repec/journl/2015-26-12-35r.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. Paola Manzini & Marco Mariotti, 2014. "Stochastic Choice and Consideration Sets," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 82(3), pages 1153-1176, May.
    3. Arouri, Mohamed & Teulon, Frédéric & Rault, Christophe, 2013. "Equity risk premium and regional integration," International Review of Financial Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 28(C), pages 79-85.
    4. ., 2013. "Industrial policy of the Obama administration," Chapters, in: Industrial Policy in America, chapter 5, pages 96-102, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    5. ., 2013. "Corporations, culture and accountability," Chapters, in: The Political Power of the Business Corporation, chapter 8, pages 177-196, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    6. Zak, F., 2014. "Psychological Games in the Theory of Choice: Temptation, Perfectionism, Self-deception," Journal of the New Economic Association, New Economic Association, vol. 21(1), pages 12-32.
    7. Yusufcan Masatlioglu & Daisuke Nakajima & Erkut Y. Ozbay, 2012. "Revealed Attention," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 102(5), pages 2183-2205, August.
    8. ., 2013. "The corporation as a political actor," Chapters, in: The Political Power of the Business Corporation, chapter 2, pages 21-41, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    9. Wei He & Nicholas C. Yannelis, 2013. "A New Perspective on Rational Expectations," Economics Discussion Paper Series 1317, Economics, The University of Manchester.
    10. Zak, F., 2014. "Psychological Games in the Theory of Choice. II. Shame, Regret, Egoism and Altruism," Journal of the New Economic Association, New Economic Association, vol. 22(2), pages 12-40.
    11. Vladimir Danilov & Gleb Koshevoy & Ernesto Savaglio, 2012. "Orderings of Opportunity Sets," Working Papers 282, ECINEQ, Society for the Study of Economic Inequality.
    12. Eriksson, Tor & Pan, Jay & Qin, Xuezheng, 2014. "The intergenerational inequality of health in China," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 31(C), pages 392-409.
    13. ., 2013. "Haavelmo reconsidered as rational econometric man," Chapters, in: Rational Econometric Man, chapter 2, pages 35-60, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    14. Fuad Aleskerov & Yetkin Çinar, 2008. "‘q-Pareto-Scalar’ Two-Stage Extremization Model and its Reducibility to One-Stage Model," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 65(4), pages 325-338, December.
    15. Paola Manzini & Marco Mariotti, 2007. "Sequentially Rationalizable Choice," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 97(5), pages 1824-1839, December.
    16. , & , & , J., 2013. "Two-stage threshold representations," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 8(3), September.
    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. Karpov, Aleksandr, 2017. "Price competition and limited attention," Economics Discussion Papers 2017-89, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).

    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. Horan, Sean, 2016. "A simple model of two-stage choice," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 162(C), pages 372-406.
    2. García-Sanz, María D. & Alcantud, José Carlos R., 2015. "Sequential rationalization of multivalued choice," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 29-33.
    3. Dean, Mark & Kıbrıs, Özgür & Masatlioglu, Yusufcan, 2017. "Limited attention and status quo bias," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 169(C), pages 93-127.
    4. 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.
    5. Nishimura, Hiroki & Ok, Efe A., 2016. "Utility representation of an incomplete and nontransitive preference relation," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 166(C), pages 164-185.
    6. Yoram Halevy & Dotan Persitz & Lanny Zrill, 2018. "Parametric Recoverability of Preferences," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 126(4), pages 1558-1593.
    7. Rochanahastin, Nuttaporn, 2020. "Assessing axioms of theories of limited attention," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 84(C).
    8. Ian Chadd & Emel Filiz-Ozbay & Erkut Y. Ozbay, 2021. "The relevance of irrelevant information," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 24(3), pages 985-1018, September.
    9. 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.
    10. Bleile, Jörg, 2016. "Limited Attention in Case-Based Belief Formation," Center for Mathematical Economics Working Papers 518, Center for Mathematical Economics, Bielefeld University.
    11. Demirkan, Yusufcan & Kimya, Mert, 2020. "Hazard rate, stochastic choice and consideration sets," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 142-150.
    12. Riella, Gil & Teper, Roee, 2014. "Probabilistic dominance and status quo bias," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 288-304.
    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. 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.
    15. Ghosal, Sayantan & Dalton, Patricio, 2013. "Characterizing Behavioral Decisions with Choice Data," CAGE Online Working Paper Series 107, Competitive Advantage in the Global Economy (CAGE).
    16. Leo Katz & Alvaro Sandroni, 2020. "Limits on power and rationality," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 54(2), pages 507-521, March.
    17. 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.
    18. Yuta Inoue, 2020. "Growing Consideration," Working Papers 2003, Waseda University, Faculty of Political Science and Economics.
    19. Castillo, Geoffrey, 2020. "The attraction effect and its explanations," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 123-147.
    20. 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.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    choice function; axioms of heredity; outcast; and concordance; filter; preferences; axiom of revealed preference; Plott function;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D71 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making - - - Social Choice; Clubs; Committees; Associations

    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:nea:journl:y:2015:i:26:p:12-35. 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: Alexey Tcharykov (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/nearuea.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.