IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/bge/wpaper/891.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Single-Crossing Random Utility Models

Author

Listed:
  • Jose Apesteguia
  • Miguel Ángel Ballester

Abstract

We propose a novel model of stochastic choice: the single-crossing random utility model (SCRUM). This is a random utility model in which the collection of utility functions satisfies the single-crossing property. We offer a characterization of SCRUMs based on three easy-to-check properties: Positivity, Monotonicity and Centrality. The identified collection of utility functions and associated probabilities is basically unique. We establish a stochastic monotone comparative result for the case of SCRUMs and study several generalizations of SCRUMs.

Suggested Citation

  • Jose Apesteguia & Miguel Ángel Ballester, 2016. "Single-Crossing Random Utility Models," Working Papers 891, Barcelona Graduate School of Economics.
  • Handle: RePEc:bge:wpaper:891
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.barcelonagse.eu/sites/default/files/working_paper_pdfs/891.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jose Apesteguia & Miguel A. Ballester, 2018. "Monotone Stochastic Choice Models: The Case of Risk and Time Preferences," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 126(1), pages 74-106.
    2. Faruk Gul & Paulo Natenzon & Wolfgang Pesendorfer, 2014. "Random Choice as Behavioral Optimization," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 82, pages 1873-1912, September.
    3. Ian Jewitt, 1987. "Risk Aversion and the Choice Between Risky Prospects: The Preservation of Comparative Statics Results," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 54(1), pages 73-85.
    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. Mira Frick & Ryota Iijima & Tomasz Strzalecki, 2019. "Dynamic Random Utility," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 87(6), pages 1941-2002, November.
    2. Roy Allen & Pawel Dziewulski & John Rehbeck, 2019. "Revealed statistical consumer theory," Working Paper Series 1119, Department of Economics, University of Sussex Business School.
    3. 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.
    4. Heufer, Jan & van Bruggen, Paul & Yang, Jingni, 2020. "Giving According to Agreement," Discussion Paper 2020-035, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.
    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. Andrew Caplin & Mark Dean & John Leahy, 2017. "Rationally Inattentive Behavior: Characterizing and Generalizing Shannon Entropy," NBER Working Papers 23652, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    7. Carlos Alós-Ferrer & Ernst Fehr & Nick Netzer, 2021. "Time Will Tell: Recovering Preferences When Choices Are Noisy," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 129(6), pages 1828-1877.
    8. Guo, Liang, 2021. "Contextual deliberation and the choice-valuation preference reversal," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 195(C).
    9. 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).
    10. Victor H. Aguiar & Maria Jose Boccardi & Nail Kashaev & Jeongbin Kim, 2018. "Does Random Consideration Explain Behavior when Choice is Hard? Evidence from a Large-scale Experiment," Papers 1812.09619, arXiv.org, revised Jun 2019.
    11. Levon Barseghyan & Francesca Molinari & Matthew Thirkettle, 2021. "Discrete Choice under Risk with Limited Consideration," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 111(6), pages 1972-2006, June.
    12. Matheus Costa & Paulo Henrique Ramos & Gil Riella, 2020. "Single-crossing choice correspondences," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 54(1), pages 69-86, January.
    13. 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.
    14. Natalia Lazzati & John K.-H. Quah & Koji Shirai, 2018. "Nonparametric analysis of monotone choice," Discussion Paper Series 184, School of Economics, Kwansei Gakuin University.
    15. Lu, Jay & Saito, Kota, 2018. "Random intertemporal choice," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 177(C), pages 780-815.
    16. Pennesi, Daniele, 2021. "Intertemporal discrete choice," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 186(C), pages 690-706.
    17. D. Pennesi, 2016. "Deciding fast and slow," Working Papers wp1082, Dipartimento Scienze Economiche, Universita' di Bologna.
    18. Manzini, Paola & Mariotti, Marco, 2018. "Dual random utility maximisation," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 177(C), pages 162-182.
    19. Manzini, Paola & Mariotti, Marco, 2018. "Dual random utility maximisation," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 177(C), pages 162-182.

    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. Mira Frick & Ryota Iijima & Tomasz Strzalecki, 2019. "Dynamic Random Utility," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 87(6), pages 1941-2002, November.
    2. Francesco Cerigioni & Simone Galperti, 2021. "Listing specs: The effect of framing attributes on choice," Economics Working Papers 1775, Department of Economics and Business, Universitat Pompeu Fabra.
    3. 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).
    4. Pennesi, Daniele, 2021. "Intertemporal discrete choice," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 186(C), pages 690-706.
    5. Maya Eden, 2017. "Misallocation and the Distribution of Global Volatility," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 107(2), pages 592-622, February.
    6. Lin, Yun Hui & Wang, Yuan & He, Dongdong & Lee, Loo Hay, 2020. "Last-mile delivery: Optimal locker location under multinomial logit choice model," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 142(C).
    7. Jose Apesteguia & Miguel A. Ballester, 2015. "A Measure of Rationality and Welfare," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 123(6), pages 1278-1310.
    8. Chateauneuf, Alain & Cohen, Michele & Meilijson, Isaac, 2004. "Four notions of mean-preserving increase in risk, risk attitudes and applications to the rank-dependent expected utility model," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 40(5), pages 547-571, August.
    9. Germano, Fabrizio & Sobbrio, Francesco, 2020. "Opinion dynamics via search engines (and other algorithmic gatekeepers)," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 187(C).
    10. Ubøe, Jan & Andersson, Jonas & Jörnsten, Kurt & Lillestøl, Jostein & Sandal, Leif, 2017. "Statistical testing of bounded rationality with applications to the newsvendor model," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 259(1), pages 251-261.
    11. repec:dau:papers:123456789/698 is not listed on IDEAS
    12. Christian Gollier & Miles S. Kimball, 2018. "New methods in the classical economics of uncertainty: comparing risks," The Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance Theory, Springer;International Association for the Study of Insurance Economics (The Geneva Association), vol. 43(1), pages 5-23, May.
    13. Jose Apesteguia & Miguel A. Ballester, 2016. "Stochastic representatitve agent," Economics Working Papers 1536, Department of Economics and Business, Universitat Pompeu Fabra.
    14. Hideki Iwaki & Yusuke Osaki, 2014. "The dual theory of the smooth ambiguity model," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 56(2), pages 275-289, June.
    15. Aguiar, Victor H. & Boccardi, Maria Jose & Dean, Mark, 2016. "Satisficing and stochastic choice," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 166(C), pages 445-482.
    16. Patrick DeJarnette & David Dillenberger & Daniel Gottlieb & Pietro Ortoleva, 2020. "Time Lotteries and Stochastic Impatience," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 88(2), pages 619-656, March.
    17. Takao Asano & Yusuke Osaki, 2017. "Portfolio Allocation Problems between Risky Ambiguous Assets," KIER Working Papers 975, Kyoto University, Institute of Economic Research.
    18. Gollier Christian & Schlee Edward E, 2006. "Increased Risk-Bearing with Background Risk," The B.E. Journal of Theoretical Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 6(1), pages 1-29, March.
    19. Jose Apesteguia & Jörg Oechssler & Simon Weidenholzer, 2020. "Copy Trading," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 66(12), pages 5608-5622, December.
      • Apesteguia, Jose & Oechssler, Jörg & Weidenholzer, Simon, 2018. "Copy Trading," Working Papers 0649, University of Heidelberg, Department of Economics.
      • Jose Apesteguia & Jörg Oechssler & Simon Weidenholzer, 2018. "Copy trading," Economics Working Papers 1615, Department of Economics and Business, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, revised Sep 2019.
      • Jose Apesteguia & Jörg Oechssler & Simon Weidenholzer, 2018. "Copy Trading," Working Papers 1048, Barcelona Graduate School of Economics.
    20. Jose Apesteguia & Miguel Angel Ballester, 2014. "Discrete Choice Estimation of Time Preferences," Working Papers 787, Barcelona Graduate School of Economics.
    21. Mogens Fosgerau & Emerson Melo & André de Palma & Matthew Shum, 2020. "Discrete Choice And Rational Inattention: A General Equivalence Result," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 61(4), pages 1569-1589, November.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    stochastic choice; single-crossing property; random utility models; monotone comparative statics;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D00 - Microeconomics - - General - - - General

    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:bge:wpaper:891. 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: . General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/bargses.html .

    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: Bruno Guallar (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/bargses.html .

    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.