IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/arx/papers/1712.03448.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

A Random Attention Model

Author

Listed:
  • Matias D. Cattaneo
  • Xinwei Ma
  • Yusufcan Masatlioglu
  • Elchin Suleymanov

Abstract

This paper illustrates how one can deduce preference from observed choices when attention is not only limited but also random. In contrast to earlier approaches, we introduce a Random Attention Model (RAM) where we abstain from any particular attention formation, and instead consider a large class of nonparametric random attention rules. Our model imposes one intuitive condition, termed Monotonic Attention, which captures the idea that each consideration set competes for the decision-maker's attention. We then develop revealed preference theory within RAM and obtain precise testable implications for observable choice probabilities. Based on these theoretical findings, we propose econometric methods for identification, estimation, and inference of the decision maker's preferences. To illustrate the applicability of our results and their concrete empirical content in specific settings, we also develop revealed preference theory and accompanying econometric methods under additional nonparametric assumptions on the consideration set for binary choice problems. Finally, we provide general purpose software implementation of our estimation and inference results, and showcase their performance using simulations.

Suggested Citation

  • Matias D. Cattaneo & Xinwei Ma & Yusufcan Masatlioglu & Elchin Suleymanov, 2017. "A Random Attention Model," Papers 1712.03448, arXiv.org, revised Aug 2019.
  • Handle: RePEc:arx:papers:1712.03448
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1712.03448
    File Function: Latest version
    Download Restriction: no

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Herbert A. Simon, 1955. "A Behavioral Model of Rational Choice," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 69(1), pages 99-118.
    2. Hiroaki Kaido & Francesca Molinari & Jörg Stoye, 2019. "Confidence Intervals for Projections of Partially Identified Parameters," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 87(4), pages 1397-1432, July.
    3. Ahumada, Alonso & Ülkü, Levent, 2018. "Luce rule with limited consideration," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 52-56.
    4. Charles F. Manski, 1989. "Anatomy of the Selection Problem," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 24(3), pages 343-360.
    5. Rahul Deb & Yuichi Kitamura & John K.-H. Quah & Jorg Stoye, 2017. "Revealed Price Preference: Theory and Stochastic Testing," Cowles Foundation Discussion Papers 2087, Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics, Yale University.
    6. Geoffroy de Clippel & Kareen Rozen, 2012. "Bounded Rationality and Limited Datasets," Cowles Foundation Discussion Papers 1853, Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics, Yale University, revised May 2014.
    7. Faruk Gul & Paulo Natenzon & Wolfgang Pesendorfer, 2014. "Random Choice as Behavioral Optimization," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 82, pages 1873-1912, September.
    8. Yuichi Kitamura & Jörg Stoye, 2018. "Nonparametric Analysis of Random Utility Models," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 86(6), pages 1883-1909, November.
    9. Elisabeth Honka & Ali Hortaçsu & Maria Ana Vitorino, 2017. "Advertising, consumer awareness, and choice: evidence from the U.S. banking industry," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 48(3), pages 611-646, August.
    10. Aguiar, Victor H. & Boccardi, Maria Jose & Dean, Mark, 2016. "Satisficing and stochastic choice," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 166(C), pages 445-482.
    11. 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.
    12. Barberà, Salvador & Grodal, Birgit, 2011. "Preference for flexibility and the opportunities of choice," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 47(3), pages 272-278.
    13. repec:hrv:faseco:34728615 is not listed on IDEAS
    14. Joseph P. Romano & Azeem M. Shaikh & Michael Wolf, 2014. "A Practical Two‐Step Method for Testing Moment Inequalities," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 82, pages 1979-2002, September.
    15. N/A, 2008. "Fuel for Thought 19–5," Energy & Environment, , vol. 19(5), pages 721-764, September.
    16. Hauser, John R & Wernerfelt, Birger, 1990. "An Evaluation Cost Model of Consideration Sets," Journal of Consumer Research, Oxford University Press, vol. 16(4), pages 393-408, March.
    17. Canay, Ivan A., 2010. "EL inference for partially identified models: Large deviations optimality and bootstrap validity," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 156(2), pages 408-425, 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. Duffy, Sean & Smith, John, 2020. "An economist and a psychologist form a line: What can imperfect perception of length tell us about stochastic choice?," MPRA Paper 99417, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    2. Linzenich, Anika & Arning, Katrin & Bongartz, Dominik & Mitsos, Alexander & Ziefle, Martina, 2019. "What fuels the adoption of alternative fuels? Examining preferences of German car drivers for fuel innovations," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 249(C), pages 222-236.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:arx:papers:1712.03448. 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: (arXiv administrators). General contact details of provider: http://arxiv.org/ .

    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.