IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/mnh/wpaper/40840.html

A first test of focusing theory

Author

Listed:
  • Dertwinkel-Kalt, Markus
  • Riener, Gerhard

Abstract

Focusing theory hypothesizes a bias toward concentration according to which consumers prefer goods with one outstanding feature over those with several smaller sized upsides. In contrast to models of present-biased behavior, focusing theory prescribes also future-biased behavior if an option’s future reward is particularly outstanding. Our laboratory experiment yields substantial support for the bias toward concentration and finds both present-biased and future-biased choices as predicted by focusing theory.

Suggested Citation

  • Dertwinkel-Kalt, Markus & Riener, Gerhard, 2016. "A first test of focusing theory," Working Papers 16-08, University of Mannheim, Department of Economics.
    • Handle: RePEc:mnh:wpaper:40840
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://madoc.bib.uni-mannheim.de/40840/1/Dertwinkel-Kalt%20und%20Riener%2016-08.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. James Andreoni & Charles Sprenger, 2012. "Estimating Time Preferences from Convex Budgets," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 102(7), pages 3333-3356, December.
    2. Botond Koszegi & Adam Szeidl, 2013. "A Model of Focusing in Economic Choice," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 128(1), pages 53-104.
    3. 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.
    4. Oechssler, Jörg & Roider, Andreas & Schmitz, Patrick W., 2009. "Cognitive abilities and behavioral biases," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 72(1), pages 147-152, October.
    5. Shane Frederick, 2005. "Cognitive Reflection and Decision Making," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 19(4), pages 25-42, Fall.
    6. Peter Wakker & Veronika Köbberling & Christiane Schwieren, 2007. "Prospect-theory’s Diminishing Sensitivity Versus Economics’ Intrinsic Utility of Money: How the Introduction of the Euro can be Used to Disentangle the Two Empirically," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 63(3), pages 205-231, November.
    7. David Laibson, 1997. "Golden Eggs and Hyperbolic Discounting," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 112(2), pages 443-478.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Blog mentions

    As found by EconAcademics.org, the blog aggregator for Economics research:
    1. Salience, & obliquity
      by chris in Stumbling and Mumbling on 2016-03-21 18:47:40

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Céline Bonnet & Jan Philip Schain, 2020. "An Empirical Analysis Of Mergers: Efficiency Gains And Impact On Consumer Prices," Journal of Competition Law and Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 16(1), pages 1-35.
    2. Ola Andersson & Jim Ingebretsen Carlson & Erik Wengström, 2021. "Differences Attract: An Experimental Study of Focusing in Economic Choice," The Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 131(639), pages 2671-2692.
    3. Brunner, Daniel & Heiss, Florian & Romahn, André & Weiser, Constantin, 2017. "Reliable estimation of random coefficient logit demand models," DICE Discussion Papers 267, Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf Institute for Competition Economics (DICE).

    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. Holden, Stein T. & Tilahun, Mesfin, 2019. "How related are risk preferences and time preferences?," CLTS Working Papers 4/19, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Centre for Land Tenure Studies, revised 16 Oct 2019.
    2. Königsheim, C. & Lukas, M. & Nöth, M., 2018. "Individual preferences and the exponential growth bias," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 145(C), pages 352-369.
    3. Kuhn, Michael A. & Kuhn, Peter & Villeval, Marie Claire, 2017. "Decision-environment effects on intertemporal financial choices: How relevant are resource-depletion models?," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 137(C), pages 72-89.
    4. Thomas Meissner & Xavier Gassmann & Corinne Faure & Joachim Schleich, 2023. "Individual characteristics associated with risk and time preferences: A multi country representative survey," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 66(1), pages 77-107, February.
    5. Michael A. Kuhn & Peter Kuhn & Marie Claire Villeval, 2014. "Self Control and Intertemporal Choice: Evidence from Glucose and Depletion Interventions," Post-Print halshs-00954539, HAL.
    6. Sergio Da Silva & Dinorá De Faveri & Ana Correa & Raul Matsushita, 2017. "High-income consumers may be less hyperbolic when discounting the future," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 37(3), pages 1421-1434.
    7. Jonathan Chapman & Erik Snowberg & Stephanie Wang & Colin Camerer, 2018. "Loss Attitudes in the U.S. Population: Evidence from Dynamically Optimized Sequential Experimentation (DOSE)," NBER Working Papers 25072, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    8. Rodriguez-Lara, Ismael & Ponti, Giovanni, 2017. "Social motives vs social influence: An experiment on interdependent time preferences," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 177-194.
    9. Kai Duttle & Keigo Inukai, 2015. "Complexity Aversion: Influences of Cognitive Abilities, Culture and System of Thought," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 35(2), pages 846-855.
    10. Backes-Gellner, Uschi & Herz, Holger & Kosfeld, Michael & Oswald, Yvonne, 2021. "Do preferences and biases predict life outcomes? Evidence from education and labor market entry decisions," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 134(C).
    11. Dertwinkel-Kalt, Markus & Köster, Mats & Peiseler, Florian, 2019. "Attention-driven demand for bonus contracts," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 1-24.
    12. Ciril Bosch-Rosa & Thomas Meissner & Antoni Bosch-Domènech, 2018. "Cognitive bubbles," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 21(1), pages 132-153, March.
    13. Mariam Raheem & Ain ul Momina, 2021. "Do Underlying Risk Preferences explain Individuals’ Cognitive Ability? Evidence from a Sample of Pakistani Students," Lahore Journal of Economics, Department of Economics, The Lahore School of Economics, vol. 26(1), pages 85-122, Jan-June.
    14. Meub, Lukas & Proeger, Till & Bizer, Kilian, 2013. "Anchoring: A valid explanation for biased forecasts when rational predictions are easily accessible and well incentivized?," University of Göttingen Working Papers in Economics 166, University of Goettingen, Department of Economics.
    15. Ji Yong Lee & Rodolfo M. Nayga & Cary Deck & Andreas C. Drichoutis, 2020. "Cognitive Ability and Bidding Behavior in Second Price Auctions: An Experimental Study," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 102(5), pages 1494-1510, October.
    16. Utz Weitzel & Christoph Huber & Jürgen Huber & Michael Kirchler & Florian Lindner & Julia Rose & Lauren Cohen, 2020. "Bubbles and Financial Professionals," The Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 33(6), pages 2659-2696.
    17. Michael A. Kuhn & Peter Kuhn & Marie Claire Villeval, 2013. "The importance of the cognitive environment on intertemporal choice," Post-Print halshs-00862656, HAL.
    18. Antonia Grohmann & Jana Hamdan, 2021. "The Effect of Self-Control and Financial Literacy on Impulse Borrowing: Experimental Evidence," Discussion Papers of DIW Berlin 1950, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research.
    19. David Cesarini & Magnus Johannesson & Patrik K. E. Magnusson & Björn Wallace, 2012. "The Behavioral Genetics of Behavioral Anomalies," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 58(1), pages 21-34, January.
    20. Roman M. Sheremeta, 2016. "Impulsive Behavior in Competition: Testing Theories of Overbidding in Rent-Seeking Contests," Working Papers 16-21, Chapman University, Economic Science Institute.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • D03 - Microeconomics - - General - - - Behavioral Microeconomics: Underlying Principles
    • D11 - Microeconomics - - Household Behavior - - - Consumer Economics: Theory
    • D90 - Microeconomics - - Micro-Based Behavioral Economics - - - General

    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:mnh:wpaper:40840. 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: Katharina Rautenberg (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/fvmande.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.