IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/cdl/ucsdec/qt34m788c3.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

A Random Attention Model

Author

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

Abstract

This paper illustrates how one can deduce preference from observed choices when attention is both limited and random. We introduce a random attention model where we abstain from any particular attention formation and instead consider a large class of nonparametric random attention rules. Our intuitive condition, monotonic attention, captures the idea that each consideration set competes for the decision maker’s attention. We then develop a revealed preference theory and obtain testable implications. We propose econometric methods for identification, estimation, and inference for the revealed preferences. Finally, we provide a general-purpose software implementation of our estimation and inference results and simulation evidence.
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)

Suggested Citation

  • Cattaneo, Matias D & Ma, Xinwei & Masatlioglu, Yusufcan & Suleymanov, Elchin, 2020. "A Random Attention Model," University of California at San Diego, Economics Working Paper Series qt34m788c3, Department of Economics, UC San Diego.
  • Handle: RePEc:cdl:ucsdec:qt34m788c3
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.escholarship.org/uc/item/34m788c3.pdf;origin=repeccitec
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

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

    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. Yuichi Kitamura & Jörg Stoye, 2018. "Nonparametric Analysis of Random Utility Models," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 86(6), pages 1883-1909, November.
    8. Aguiar, Victor H. & Boccardi, Maria Jose & Dean, Mark, 2016. "Satisficing and stochastic choice," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 166(C), pages 445-482.
    9. 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.
    10. Barberà, Salvador & Grodal, Birgit, 2011. "Preference for flexibility and the opportunities of choice," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 47(3), pages 272-278.
    11. repec:hrv:faseco:34728615 is not listed on IDEAS
    12. 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.
    13. 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.
    14. Faruk Gul & Paulo Natenzon & Wolfgang Pesendorfer, 2014. "Random Choice as Behavioral Optimization," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 82, pages 1873-1912, September.
    15. 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.
    16. Kawaguchi, Kohei, 2017. "Testing rationality without restricting heterogeneity," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 197(1), pages 153-171.
    17. N/A, 2008. "Fuel for Thought 19–5," Energy & Environment, , vol. 19(5), pages 721-764, September.
    18. 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. 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.
    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. 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.
    5. Gibbard, Peter, 2021. "Disentangling preferences and limited attention: Random-utility models with consideration sets," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 94(C).
    6. Edward Honda, 2021. "Categorical consideration and perception complementarity," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 71(2), pages 693-716, March.
    7. Matthew Kovach & Elchin Suleymanov, 2021. "Reference Dependence and Random Attention," Papers 2106.13350, arXiv.org, revised Sep 2021.
    8. Andrew Ellis & Heidi Christina Thysen, 2021. "Subjective Causality in Choice," Papers 2106.05957, arXiv.org.

    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. 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.
    2. Yuichi Kitamura & Jörg Stoye, 2018. "Nonparametric Analysis of Random Utility Models," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 86(6), pages 1883-1909, November.
    3. Christian Bontemps & Thierry Magnac, 2017. "Set Identification, Moment Restrictions, and Inference," Annual Review of Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 9(1), pages 103-129, September.
    4. Bontemps, Christian & Kumar, Rohit, 2020. "A geometric approach to inference in set-identified entry games," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 218(2), pages 373-389.
    5. Bugni, Federico A. & Canay, Ivan A. & Shi, Xiaoxia, 2015. "Specification tests for partially identified models defined by moment inequalities," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 185(1), pages 259-282.
    6. Paola Manzini & Marco Mariotti & Levent Ülkü, 2019. "Stochastic Complementarity," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 129(619), pages 1343-1363.
    7. 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.
    8. Aguiar, Victor H. & Kimya, Mert, 2019. "Adaptive stochastic search," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 74-83.
    9. Ivan A. Canay & Azeem M. Shaikh, 2016. "Practical and theoretical advances in inference for partially identified models," CeMMAP working papers CWP05/16, Centre for Microdata Methods and Practice, Institute for Fiscal Studies.
    10. Kovach, Matthew & Ülkü, Levent, 2020. "Satisficing with a variable threshold," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 67-76.
    11. Christian Bontemps & Rohit Kumar, 2019. "A Geometric Approach to Inference in Set-Identified Entry Games," Working Papers hal-02137356, HAL.
    12. Demirkan, Yusufcan & Kimya, Mert, 2020. "Hazard rate, stochastic choice and consideration sets," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 142-150.
    13. 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).
    14. Victor Chernozhukov & Denis Chetverikov & Kengo Kato, 2013. "Testing Many Moment Inequalities," CeMMAP working papers CWP65/13, Centre for Microdata Methods and Practice, Institute for Fiscal Studies.
    15. Nagler Matthew G., 2007. "Understanding the Internet's Relevance to Media Ownership Policy: A Model of Too Many Choices," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 7(1), pages 1-28, June.
    16. Christian Bontemps & Thierry Magnac & Eric Maurin, 2012. "Set Identified Linear Models," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 80(3), pages 1129-1155, May.
    17. Lee, Sokbae & Song, Kyungchul & Whang, Yoon-Jae, 2018. "Testing For A General Class Of Functional Inequalities," Econometric Theory, Cambridge University Press, vol. 34(5), pages 1018-1064, October.
    18. 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.
    19. Echenique, Federico & Saito, Kota & Tserenjigmid, Gerelt, 2018. "The perception-adjusted Luce model," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 67-76.
    20. Arun Chandrasekhar & Victor Chernozhukov & Francesca Molinari & Paul Schrimpf, 2012. "Inference for best linear approximations to set identified functions," CeMMAP working papers CWP43/12, Centre for Microdata Methods and Practice, Institute for Fiscal Studies.

    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:cdl:ucsdec:qt34m788c3. 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/deucsus.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: Lisa Schiff (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/deucsus.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.