IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hal/psewpa/halshs-01998001.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Eliciting Choice Correspondences A General Method and an Experimental Implementation

Author

Listed:
  • Elias Bouacida

    (PSE - Paris School of Economics - ENPC - École des Ponts ParisTech - ENS-PSL - École normale supérieure - Paris - PSL - Université Paris sciences et lettres - UP1 - Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique - EHESS - École des hautes études en sciences sociales - INRAE - Institut National de Recherche pour l’Agriculture, l’Alimentation et l’Environnement, PJSE - Paris Jourdan Sciences Economiques - UP1 - Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne - ENS-PSL - École normale supérieure - Paris - PSL - Université Paris sciences et lettres - EHESS - École des hautes études en sciences sociales - ENPC - École des Ponts ParisTech - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique - INRAE - Institut National de Recherche pour l’Agriculture, l’Alimentation et l’Environnement)

Abstract

I introduce a general method for identifying choice correspondences experimentally, i.e., the sets of best alternatives of decision makers in each choice sets. Most of the revealed preference literature assumes that decision makers can choose sets. In contrast, most experiments force the choice of a single alternative in each choice set. In this paper, I allow decision makers to choose several alternatives, provide a small incentive for each alternative chosen, and then randomly select one for payment. I derive the conditions under which the method at least partially identifies the choice correspondence, by obtaining supersets and subsets for each choice set. I illustrate the method with an experiment, in which subjects chose between four paid tasks. I can retrieve the full choice correspondence for 26% of subjects and bind it for another 46%. Subjects chose sets of size 2 or larger 60% of the time, whereas only 3% of them always chose singletons. I then show that 46% of all observed choices can be rationalized by complete, reflexive and transitive preferences in my experiment, i.e., satisfy the Weak Axiom of Revealed Preferences – WARP hereafter. Weakening the classical model, incomplete preferences or just-noticeable difference preferences do not rationalize more choice correspondences. Going beyond WARP, however, I show that complete, reflexive and transitive preferences with menu-dependent choices rationalize 93% of observed choices. Having elicited choice correspondences allows me to conclude that indifference is widespread in the experiment. These results pave the way for exploring various behavioral models with a unified method.

Suggested Citation

  • Elias Bouacida, 2019. "Eliciting Choice Correspondences A General Method and an Experimental Implementation," PSE Working Papers halshs-01998001, HAL.
  • Handle: RePEc:hal:psewpa:halshs-01998001
    Note: View the original document on HAL open archive server: https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-01998001
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-01998001/document
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Syngjoo Choi & Shachar Kariv & Wieland M?ller & Dan Silverman, 2014. "Who Is (More) Rational?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 104(6), pages 1518-1550, June.
    2. Christopher J. Tyson, 2018. "Rationalizability of menu preferences," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 65(4), pages 917-934, June.
    3. Christopher J. Tyson, 2018. "Correction to: Rationalizability of menu preferences," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 65(4), pages 935-935, June.
    4. Paola Manzini & Marco Mariotti, 2012. "Categorize Then Choose: Boundedly Rational Choice And Welfare," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 10(5), pages 1141-1165, October.
    5. Sautua, Santiago I., 2017. "Does uncertainty cause inertia in decision making? An experimental study of the role of regret aversion and indecisiveness," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 1-14.
    6. James Andreoni & Charles Sprenger, 2012. "Estimating Time Preferences from Convex Budgets," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 102(7), pages 3333-3356, December.
    7. Thomas Dohmen & Armin Falk & David Huffman & Uwe Sunde & Jürgen Schupp & Gert G. Wagner, 2011. "Individual Risk Attitudes: Measurement, Determinants, And Behavioral Consequences," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 9(3), pages 522-550, June.
    8. Danan, Eric & Gajdos, Thibault & Tallon, Jean-Marc, 2013. "Aggregating sets of von Neumann–Morgenstern utilities," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 148(2), pages 663-688.
    9. Danan, Eric, 2008. "Revealed preference and indifferent selection," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 55(1), pages 24-37, January.
    10. Georgios Gerasimou, 2018. "Indecisiveness, Undesirability and Overload Revealed Through Rational Choice Deferral," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 128(614), pages 2450-2479, September.
    11. Fuad Aleskerov & Denis Bouyssou & Bernard Monjardet, 2007. "Utility Maximization, Choice and Preference," Springer Books, Springer, edition 0, number 978-3-540-34183-3, January.
    12. Amartya K. Sen, 1971. "Choice Functions and Revealed Preference," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 38(3), pages 307-317.
    13. Syngjoo Choi & Raymond Fisman & Douglas Gale & Shachar Kariv, 2007. "Consistency, Heterogeneity, and Granularity of Individual Behavior under Uncertainty," Economics Working Papers 0076, Institute for Advanced Study, School of Social Science.
    14. Camerer, Colin F & Ho, Teck-Hua, 1994. "Violations of the Betweenness Axiom and Nonlinearity in Probability," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 8(2), pages 167-196, March.
    15. Elias Bouacida & Daniel Martin, 2017. "Predictive Power in Behavioral Welfare Economics," Working Papers halshs-01489252, HAL.
    16. Urs Fischbacher, 2007. "z-Tree: Zurich toolbox for ready-made economic experiments," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 10(2), pages 171-178, June.
    17. Mandler, Michael, 2005. "Incomplete preferences and rational intransitivity of choice," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 50(2), pages 255-277, February.
    18. Elias Bouacida & Daniel Martin, 2017. "Predictive Power in Behavioral Welfare Economics," PSE Working Papers halshs-01489252, HAL.
    19. Elena Cettolin & Arno Riedl, 2015. "Revealed Incomplete Preferences under Uncertainty," CESifo Working Paper Series 5359, CESifo.
    20. Ok, Efe A., 2002. "Utility Representation of an Incomplete Preference Relation," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 104(2), pages 429-449, June.
    21. Andrew Caplin & Mark Dean & Daniel Martin, 2011. "Search and Satisficing," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 101(7), pages 2899-2922, December.
    22. Hiroki Nishimura & Efe A. Ok & John K.-H. Quah, 2017. "A Comprehensive Approach to Revealed Preference Theory," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 107(4), pages 1239-1263, April.
    23. Qiu, Jianying & Ong, Qiyan, 2017. "Indifference or indecisiveness: a strict discrimination," MPRA Paper 81440, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 18 Sep 2017.
    24. Syngjoo Choi & Raymond Fisman & Douglas Gale & Shachar Kariv, 2007. "Consistency and Heterogeneity of Individual Behavior under Uncertainty," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 97(5), pages 1921-1938, December.
    25. Nishimura, Hiroki & Ok, Efe A., 2016. "Utility representation of an incomplete and nontransitive preference relation," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 166(C), pages 164-185.
    26. Marina Agranov & Pietro Ortoleva, 2017. "Stochastic Choice and Preferences for Randomization," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 125(1), pages 40-68.
    27. Sugden, Robert, 2003. "Reference-dependent subjective expected utility," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 111(2), pages 172-191, August.
    28. Klaus Nehring, 1997. "Rational choice and revealed preference without binariness," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 14(3), pages 403-425.
    29. Dekel, Eddie, 1986. "An axiomatic characterization of preferences under uncertainty: Weakening the independence axiom," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 40(2), pages 304-318, December.
    30. Peter C. Fishburn, 1970. "Intransitive Indifference in Preference Theory: A Survey," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 18(2), pages 207-228, April.
    31. ,, 2016. "Monotone threshold representations," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 11(3), September.
    32. Eric Danan & Anthony Ziegelmeyer, 2006. "Are preferences complete? An experimental measurement of indecisiveness under risk," Papers on Strategic Interaction 2006-01, Max Planck Institute of Economics, Strategic Interaction Group.
    33. Jean-François Laslier & M. Remzi Sanver (ed.), 2010. "Handbook on Approval Voting," Studies in Choice and Welfare, Springer, number 978-3-642-02839-7, December.
    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. Boissonnet, Niels & Ghersengorin, Alexis & Gleyze, Simon, 2020. "Revealed Deliberate Preference Changes," MPRA Paper 101756, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    2. Elias Bouacida & Renaud Foucart, 2020. "The acceptability of lotteries in allocation problems," Working Papers 301646245, Lancaster University Management School, Economics Department.

    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. Elias Bouacida, 2019. "Eliciting Choice Correspondences A General Method and an Experimental Implementation," Working Papers halshs-01998001, HAL.
    2. Elias Bouacida, 2021. "Identifying Choice Correspondences," Working Papers 327800275, Lancaster University Management School, Economics Department.
    3. Pawel Dziewulski, 2021. "A comprehensive revealed preference approach to approximate utility maximisation," Working Paper Series 0621, Department of Economics, University of Sussex Business School.
    4. 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.
    5. Uttara Balakrishnan & Johannes Haushofer & Pamela Jakiela, 2020. "How soon is now? Evidence of present bias from convex time budget experiments," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 23(2), pages 294-321, June.
    6. Georgios Gerasimou, 2021. "On the Elicitation of Weak Preferences," Papers 2111.14431, arXiv.org, revised Oct 2022.
    7. Ferdinand M. Vieider & Peter Martinsson & Pham Khanh Nam & Nghi Truong, 2019. "Risk preferences and development revisited," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 86(1), pages 1-21, February.
    8. Fabrice Le Lec & Marianne Lumeau & Benoît Tarroux, 2022. "How choice proliferation affects revealed preferences," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 93(2), pages 331-358, September.
    9. Brocas, Isabelle & Carrillo, Juan D. & Combs, T. Dalton & Kodaverdian, Niree, 2019. "Consistency in simple vs. complex choices by younger and older adults," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 580-601.
    10. Dziewulski, Paweł, 2020. "Just-noticeable difference as a behavioural foundation of the critical cost-efficiency index," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 188(C).
    11. Maltz, Amnon & Rachmilevitch, Shiran, 2021. "A model of menu-dependent evaluations and comparison-aversion," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 91(C).
    12. Alfio Giarlotta & Angelo Petralia & Stephen Watson, 2022. "Semantics meets attractiveness: Choice by salience," Papers 2204.08798, arXiv.org, revised Aug 2022.
    13. Zachary Breig, 2020. "Prediction and Model Selection in Experiments," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 96(313), pages 153-176, June.
    14. Itzhak Gilboa & Fabio Maccheroni & Massimo Marinacci & David Schmeidler, 2010. "Objective and Subjective Rationality in a Multiple Prior Model," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 78(2), pages 755-770, March.
    15. Federico Echenique, 2020. "New Developments in Revealed Preference Theory: Decisions Under Risk, Uncertainty, and Intertemporal Choice," Annual Review of Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 12(1), pages 299-316, August.
    16. Eric Danan, 2010. "Randomization vs. Selection: How to Choose in the Absence of Preference?," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 56(3), pages 503-518, March.
    17. E. Cettolin & P. S. Dalton & W. J. Kop & W. Zhang, 2020. "Cortisol meets GARP: the effect of stress on economic rationality," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 23(2), pages 554-574, June.
    18. Allen, Roy & Dziewulski, Paweł & Rehbeck, John, 2022. "Making sense of monkey business: Re-examining tests of animal rationality," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 196(C), pages 220-228.
    19. Jeffrey Butler & Luigi Guiso & Tullio Jappelli, 2014. "The role of intuition and reasoning in driving aversion to risk and ambiguity," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 77(4), pages 455-484, December.
    20. Elena Cettolin & Arno Riedl, 2015. "Revealed Incomplete Preferences under Uncertainty," CESifo Working Paper Series 5359, CESifo.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    aggregation of preferences; just noticeable preferences; choice correspondences; revealed preferences; welfare; indifference; WARP;
    All these keywords.

    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:hal:psewpa:halshs-01998001. 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://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/ .

    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: CCSD (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/ .

    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.