IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/esm/wpaper/esmt-16-04_r2.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Consumer choice under limited attention when alternatives have different information costs

Author

Listed:
  • Frank Huettner,

    (ESMT European School of Management and Technology)

  • Tamer Boyaci,

    (ESMT European School of Management and Technology)

  • Yalcin Akcay

    (Melbourne Business School)

Abstract

Consumers often do not have complete information about the choices they face and therefore have to spend time and effort in acquiring information. Since information acquisition is costly, consumers trade-off the value of better information against its cost, and make their final product choices based on imperfect information. We model this decision using the rational inattention approach and describe the rationally inattentive consumer’s choice behavior when she faces alternatives with different information costs. To this end, we introduce an information cost function that distinguishes between direct and implied information. We then analytically characterize the optimal choice probabilities. We find that non-uniform information costs can have a strong impact on product choice, which gets particularly conspicuous when the product alternatives are otherwise very similar. There are significant implications on how a seller should provide information about its products and how changes to the product set impacts consumer choice. For example, non-uniform information costs can lead to situations where it is disadvantageous for the seller to provide easier access to information for a particular product, and to situations where the addition of an inferior (never chosen) product increases the market share of another existing product (i.e., failure of regularity). We also provide an algorithm to compute the optimal choice probabilities and discuss how our framework can be empirically estimated from suitable choice data.

Suggested Citation

  • Frank Huettner, & Tamer Boyaci, & Yalcin Akcay, 2016. "Consumer choice under limited attention when alternatives have different information costs," ESMT Research Working Papers ESMT-16-04_R2, ESMT European School of Management and Technology, revised 28 Feb 2018.
  • Handle: RePEc:esm:wpaper:esmt-16-04_r2
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://static.esmt.org/publications/workingpapers/ESMT-16-04.pdf
    File Function: First version, 2016
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: http://static.esmt.org/publications/workingpapers/ESMT-16-04_R2.pdf
    File Function: Revised version, 2018
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Xavier Gabaix, 2014. "A Sparsity-Based Model of Bounded Rationality," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 129(4), pages 1661-1710.
    2. T. Tony Ke & Zuo-Jun Max Shen & J. Miguel Villas-Boas, 2016. "Search for Information on Multiple Products," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 62(12), pages 3576-3603, December.
    3. Bartosz Mackowiak & Mirko Wiederholt, 2009. "Optimal Sticky Prices under Rational Inattention," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 99(3), pages 769-803, June.
    4. 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.
    5. Gigerenzer, Gerd & Todd, Peter M. & ABC Research Group,, 2000. "Simple Heuristics That Make Us Smart," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780195143812.
    6. William McGill, 1954. "Multivariate information transmission," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 19(2), pages 97-116, June.
    7. Kalyan Talluri & Garrett van Ryzin, 2004. "Revenue Management Under a General Discrete Choice Model of Consumer Behavior," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 50(1), pages 15-33, January.
    8. Andrew M. Davis & Elena Katok & Anthony M. Kwasnica, 2014. "Should Sellers Prefer Auctions? A Laboratory Comparison of Auctions and Sequential Mechanisms," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 60(4), pages 990-1008, April.
    9. Filip Matejka & Alisdair McKay, 2012. "Simple Market Equilibria with Rationally Inattentive Consumers," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 102(3), pages 24-29, May.
    10. Lingxiu Dong & Panos Kouvelis & Zhongjun Tian, 2009. "Dynamic Pricing and Inventory Control of Substitute Products," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 11(2), pages 317-339, December.
    11. Dan Zhang & Daniel Adelman, 2009. "An Approximate Dynamic Programming Approach to Network Revenue Management with Customer Choice," Transportation Science, INFORMS, vol. 43(3), pages 381-394, August.
    12. Ricardo Reis, 2006. "Inattentive Producers," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 73(3), pages 793-821.
    13. Herbert A. Simon, 1955. "A Behavioral Model of Rational Choice," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 69(1), pages 99-118.
    14. Weitzman, Martin L, 1979. "Optimal Search for the Best Alternative," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 47(3), pages 641-654, May.
    15. Andrew Caplin & Mark Dean, 2015. "Revealed Preference, Rational Inattention, and Costly Information Acquisition," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 105(7), pages 2183-2203, July.
    16. Fernando Branco & Monic Sun & J. Miguel Villas-Boas, 2012. "Optimal Search for Product Information," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 58(11), pages 2037-2056, November.
    17. Garrett van Ryzin & Siddharth Mahajan, 1999. "On the Relationship Between Inventory Costs and Variety Benefits in Retail Assortments," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 45(11), pages 1496-1509, November.
    18. de Oliveira, Henrique & Denti, Tommaso & Mihm, Maximilian & Ozbek, Kemal, 2017. "Rationally inattentive preferences and hidden information costs," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 12(2), May.
    19. Jose Blanchet & Guillermo Gallego & Vineet Goyal, 2016. "A Markov Chain Approximation to Choice Modeling," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 64(4), pages 886-905, August.
    20. Rebecca W. Hamilton & Debora Viana Thompson, 2007. "Is There a Substitute for Direct Experience? Comparing Consumers' Preferences after Direct and Indirect Product Experiences," Journal of Consumer Research, Oxford University Press, vol. 34(4), pages 546-555, June.
    21. Huber, Joel & Payne, John W & Puto, Christopher, 1982. "Adding Asymmetrically Dominated Alternatives: Violations of Regularity and the Similarity Hypothesis," Journal of Consumer Research, Oxford University Press, vol. 9(1), pages 90-98, June.
    22. Sims, Christopher A., 2003. "Implications of rational inattention," Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol. 50(3), pages 665-690, April.
    23. Hoch, Stephen J & Ha, Young-Won, 1986. "Consumer Learning: Advertising and the Ambiguity of Product Experience," Journal of Consumer Research, Oxford University Press, vol. 13(2), pages 221-233, September.
    24. Ward Hanson & Kipp Martin, 1996. "Optimizing Multinomial Logit Profit Functions," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 42(7), pages 992-1003, July.
    25. Christopher A. Sims, 2006. "Rational Inattention: Beyond the Linear-Quadratic Case," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 96(2), pages 158-163, May.
    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. Frank Huettner, & Tamer Boyaci, & Yalcin Akcay, 2016. "Consumer choice under limited attention when alternatives have different information costs," ESMT Research Working Papers ESMT-16-04_R3, ESMT European School of Management and Technology, revised 26 Sep 2018.
    2. Frank Huettner, & Tamer Boyaci, & Yalcin Akcay, 2016. "Consumer choice under limited attention when options have different information costs," ESMT Research Working Papers ESMT-16-04, ESMT European School of Management and Technology, revised 04 Oct 2016.
    3. Frank Huettner & Tamer Boyacı & Yalçın Akçay, 2019. "Consumer Choice Under Limited Attention When Alternatives Have Different Information Costs," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 67(3), pages 671-699, May.
    4. Bartosz Maćkowiak & Filip Matějka & Mirko Wiederholt, 2023. "Rational Inattention: A Review," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 61(1), pages 226-273, March.
    5. Tamer Boyaci & Yalçin Akçay, 2016. "Pricing when customers have limited attention," ESMT Research Working Papers ESMT-16-01, ESMT European School of Management and Technology, revised 19 Jan 2017.
    6. Xavier Gabaix, 2017. "Behavioral Inattention," NBER Working Papers 24096, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    7. Tamer Boyac? & Yalçın Akçay, 2018. "Pricing When Customers Have Limited Attention," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(7), pages 2995-3014, July.
    8. Ellis, Andrew, 2018. "Foundations for optimal inattention," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 173(C), pages 56-94.
    9. Matějka, Filip & Mackowiak, Bartosz & Wiederholt, Mirko, 2018. "Survey: Rational Inattention, a Disciplined Behavioral Model," CEPR Discussion Papers 13243, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    10. 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.
    11. Roc Armenter & Michèle Müller-Itten & Zachary Stangebye, 2020. "Rational Inattention via Ignorance Equivalence," Working Papers 20-24, Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia.
    12. Angeletos, G.-M. & Lian, C., 2016. "Incomplete Information in Macroeconomics," Handbook of Macroeconomics, in: J. B. Taylor & Harald Uhlig (ed.), Handbook of Macroeconomics, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 0, pages 1065-1240, Elsevier.
    13. Matějka, Filip, 2015. "Rigid pricing and rationally inattentive consumer," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 158(PB), pages 656-678.
    14. Martinovici, A., 2019. "Revealing attention - how eye movements predict brand choice and moment of choice," Other publications TiSEM 7dca38a5-9f78-4aee-bd81-c, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    15. Atahan Afsar; José Elías Gallegos; Richard Jaimes; Edgar Silgado Gómez & José Elías Gallegos & Richard Jaimes & Edgar Silgado Gómez, 2020. "Reconciling Empirics and Theory: The Behavioral Hybrid New Keynesian Model," Vniversitas Económica 18560, Universidad Javeriana - Bogotá.
    16. Guang Li & Paat Rusmevichientong & Huseyin Topaloglu, 2015. "The d -Level Nested Logit Model: Assortment and Price Optimization Problems," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 63(2), pages 325-342, April.
    17. Stephanie L. Chan, 2021. "The Social Value of Public Information When Not Everyone is Privately Informed," Working Papers 2021-09-18, Wang Yanan Institute for Studies in Economics (WISE), Xiamen University.
    18. Pasten, Ernesto & Schoenle, Raphael, 2016. "Rational inattention, multi-product firms and the neutrality of money," Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 1-16.
    19. Lin, Yi-Hsuan, 2022. "Stochastic choice and rational inattention," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 202(C).
    20. Roc Armenter & Michèle Müller-Itten & Zachary Strangebye, 2021. "Geometric Methods for Finite Rational Inattention," Working Papers 21-30, Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    discrete choice; rational inattention; information acquisition; non-uniform information costs; strong failure of regularity;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D40 - Microeconomics - - Market Structure, Pricing, and Design - - - General
    • D80 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - 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:esm:wpaper:esmt-16-04_r2. 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: ESMT Faculty Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/emstbde.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.