IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/arx/papers/2604.26761.html

Measuring Choice Difficulty

Author

Listed:
  • Chris Chambers
  • Yusufcan Masatolioglu
  • Paulo Natenzon
  • Collin Raymond

Abstract

We provide a theoretical framework to understand how widely used measures of choice difficulty relate. In a binary-option Bayesian expected-utility framework, we show that three measures of difficulty, (i) understanding (ex-ante value), (ii) choice randomness, and (iii) confidence that the chosen option is ex post correct, are, in general, unrelated, and that this result extends to other potential measures like attenuation. We provide intuitive sufficient conditions which align the orders, using both restrictions on Blackwell experiments that capture well known classes (such as logit) and restrictions on payoffs and demonstrate that in psychophysical tasks that pay only for correctness, confidence coincides with understanding. We show willingness-to-accept to switch, when measured in utils, is equivalent to understanding. Our results suggest caution in interpreting measures of choice difficulty as well as the degree of portability between economics and psychophysics experiments

Suggested Citation

  • Chris Chambers & Yusufcan Masatolioglu & Paulo Natenzon & Collin Raymond, 2026. "Measuring Choice Difficulty," Papers 2604.26761, arXiv.org.
    • Handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2604.26761
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2604.26761
    File Function: Latest version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Benjamin Enke & Cassidy Shubatt, 2023. "Quantifying Lottery Choice Complexity," CESifo Working Paper Series 10644, CESifo.
    2. Grant, Simon & Kajii, Atsushi & Polak, Ben, 1998. "Intrinsic Preference for Information," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 83(2), pages 233-259, December.
    3. Dobromir Rahnev, 2025. "A comprehensive assessment of current methods for measuring metacognition," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 16(1), pages 1-19, December.
    4. Gossner, Olivier & Steiner, Jakub, 2018. "On the cost of misperception: General results and behavioral applications," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 177(C), pages 816-847.
    5. Jack L. Knetsch & J. A. Sinden, 1984. "Willingness to Pay and Compensation Demanded: Experimental Evidence of an Unexpected Disparity in Measures of Value," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 99(3), pages 507-521.
    6. Benjamin Enke & Cassidy Shubatt, 2023. "Quantifying Lottery Choice Complexity," NBER Working Papers 31677, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    7. Robert E. Krider & Priya Raghubir & Aradhna Krishna, 2001. "Pizzas: p or Square? Psychophysical Biases in Area Comparisons," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 20(4), pages 405-425, March.
    8. Benjamin Enke & Thomas Graeber & Ryan Oprea & Jeffrey Yang, 2024. "Behavioral Attenuation," NBER Working Papers 32973, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    9. Benjamin Enke & Thomas Graeber & Ryan Oprea & Jeffrey Yang & Thomas W. Graeber, 2024. "Behavioral Attenuation," CESifo Working Paper Series 11345, CESifo.
    10. Robin Cubitt & Daniel Navarro-Martinez & Chris Starmer, 2015. "On preference imprecision," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 50(1), pages 1-34, February.
    11. Shane Frederick, 2005. "Cognitive Reflection and Decision Making," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 19(4), pages 25-42, Fall.
    12. Filip Matêjka & Alisdair McKay, 2015. "Rational Inattention to Discrete Choices: A New Foundation for the Multinomial Logit Model," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 105(1), pages 272-298, January.
    13. Jay Lu, 2016. "Random Choice and Private Information," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 84, pages 1983-2027, November.
    14. David J. Butler & Graham C. Loomes, 2007. "Imprecision as an Account of the Preference Reversal Phenomenon," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 97(1), pages 277-297, March.
    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. 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.
    2. 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).
    3. Guo, Liang, 2021. "Contextual deliberation and the choice-valuation preference reversal," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 195(C).
    4. Yoram Halevy & David Walker-Jones & Lanny Zrill, 2023. "Difficult Decisions," Working Papers tecipa-753, University of Toronto, Department of Economics.
    5. 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.
    6. Horan, Sean & Manzini, Paola & Mariotti, Marco, 2022. "When is coarseness not a curse? Comparative statics of the coarse random utility model," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 202(C).
    7. Jonathan Chapman & Mark Dean & Pietro Ortoleva & Erik Snowberg & Colin Camerer, 2021. "On the Relation between Willingness to Accept and Willingness to Pay," Working Papers 2021-90, Princeton University. Economics Department..
    8. Cettolin, Elena & Riedl, Arno, 2019. "Revealed preferences under uncertainty: Incomplete preferences and preferences for randomization," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 181(C), pages 547-585.
    9. Bello, Piera & Galasso, Vincenzo & Izzo, Alessandro, 2026. "Retirement Under Policy Uncertainty," CEPR Discussion Papers 21344, Centre for Economic Policy Research.
    10. Okan Akarsu & Emrehan Aktug & Huzeyfe Torun, 2025. "Inflation Expectations and Firms' Decisions in High Inflation: Evidence from a Randomized Control Trial," Working Papers 2512, Research and Monetary Policy Department, Central Bank of the Republic of Turkey.
    11. Carola Braun & Katrin Rehdanz & Ulrich Schmidt, 2016. "Validity of Willingness to Pay Measures under Preference Uncertainty," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(4), pages 1-17, April.
    12. Sandro Ambuehl & Rahul Bhui & Heidi C. Thysen, 2026. "Mental Models of Causal Structure in Economics and Psychology," Papers 2603.29070, arXiv.org, revised Apr 2026.
    13. Matthew P. Taylor, 2020. "Liking the long-shot … but just as a friend," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 61(3), pages 245-261, December.
    14. Miguel A. Costa‐Gomes & Carlos Cueva & Georgios Gerasimou & Matúš Tejiščák, 2022. "Choice, deferral, and consistency," Quantitative Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 13(3), pages 1297-1318, July.
    15. Tsegay Tekleselassie & Marc Witte & Jonas Radbruch & Lukas Hensel & Ingo E. Isphording, 2025. "Feedback, Confidence and Job Search Behavior," CRC TR 224 Discussion Paper Series crctr224_2025_668, University of Bonn and University of Mannheim, Germany.
    16. Liu Shi & Jianying Qiu & Jiangyan Li & Frank Bohn, 2024. "Consciously stochastic in preference reversals," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 68(3), pages 255-297, June.
    17. Giuseppe Attanasi & Nikolaos Georgantzís & Valentina Rotondi & Daria Vigani, 2018. "Lottery- and survey-based risk attitudes linked through a multichoice elicitation task," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 84(3), pages 341-372, May.
    18. Benjamin Enke & Thomas Graeber & Ryan Oprea, 2023. "Complexity and Hyperbolic Discounting," NBER Working Papers 31047, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    19. Simone Cerreia-Vioglio & Fabio Maccheroni & Massimo Marinacci, 2020. "Multinomial logit processes and preference discovery: outside and inside the black box," Working Papers 663, IGIER (Innocenzo Gasparini Institute for Economic Research), Bocconi University.
    20. Loomes, Graham & Starmer, Chris & Sugden, Robert, 2010. "Preference reversals and disparities between willingness to pay and willingness to accept in repeated markets," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 31(3), pages 374-387, June.

    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:2604.26761. 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: arXiv administrators (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://arxiv.org/ .

    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.