IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Bounded Rationality and Consumer Research: Lessons From a Study of Choices of Mobile Phone Service Contracts



This paper draws lessons about the allocation of resources to research aimed at studying the efficiency of consumer decision making in complex, fast-moving markets. These lessons emerged during research involving a large-sample survey of choices of mobile phone service plans by Australian consumers. In this kind of market, researchers will run into difficulties in collecting and evaluating data, and market conditions will not stand still while they address these problems. It is even possible that what seems suboptimal to researchers will sometimes actually be highly appropriate choice for consumers. The paper concludes by advocating the use of simpler methods to approximate the prevalence of decision-making inefficiency—such as collaborative work with owners of websites that try to assist consumers—as knowledge of optimal choices is not essential for understanding the sources of inefficiency or devising methods by which better choices might be made.

Suggested Citation

  • Peter Earl & Lana Friesen & Kristin Hatherley, 2011. "Bounded Rationality and Consumer Research: Lessons From a Study of Choices of Mobile Phone Service Contracts," Discussion Papers Series 449, School of Economics, University of Queensland, Australia.
  • Handle: RePEc:qld:uq2004:449

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    1. Lars Ehlers & John A. Weymark, 2003. "Candidate stability and nonbinary social choice," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 22(2), pages 233-243, September.
    2. Lin Zhou & Stephen Ching, 2002. "Multi-valued strategy-proof social choice rules," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 19(3), pages 569-580.
    3. Barbera, Salvador & Dutta, Bhaskar & Sen, Arunava, 2005. "Corrigendum to "Strategy-proof social choice correspondences" [J. Econ. Theory 101 (2001) 374-394]," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 120(2), pages 275-275, February.
    4. Muller, Eitan & Satterthwaite, Mark A., 1977. "The equivalence of strong positive association and strategy-proofness," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 14(2), pages 412-418, April.
    5. Gevers, Louis, 1979. "On Interpersonal Comparability and Social Welfare Orderings," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 47(1), pages 75-89, January.
    6. Dutta, Bhaskar & Jackson, Matthew O & Le Breton, Michel, 2001. "Strategic Candidacy and Voting Procedures," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 69(4), pages 1013-1037, July.
    7. Karni, Edi & Schmeidler, David, 1976. "Independence of nonfeasible alternatives, and independence of nonoptimal alternatives," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 12(3), pages 488-493, June.
    8. Satterthwaite, Mark Allen, 1975. "Strategy-proofness and Arrow's conditions: Existence and correspondence theorems for voting procedures and social welfare functions," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 10(2), pages 187-217, April.
    9. Kirman, Alan P. & Sondermann, Dieter, 1972. "Arrow's theorem, many agents, and invisible dictators," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 5(2), pages 267-277, October.
    10. John Geanakoplos, 2005. "Three brief proofs of Arrow’s Impossibility Theorem," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 26(1), pages 211-215, July.
    11. Eraslan, H.Hulya & McLennan, Andrew, 2004. "Strategic candidacy for multivalued voting procedures," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 117(1), pages 29-54, July.
    12. Ning Yu, 2012. "A one-shot proof of Arrow’s impossibility theorem," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 50(2), pages 523-525, June.
    13. Reny, Philip J., 2001. "Arrow's theorem and the Gibbard-Satterthwaite theorem: a unified approach," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 70(1), pages 99-105, January.
    14. Sen, Arunava, 2001. "Another direct proof of the Gibbard-Satterthwaite Theorem," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 70(3), pages 381-385, March.
    15. Gibbard, Allan, 1973. "Manipulation of Voting Schemes: A General Result," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 41(4), pages 587-601, July.
    16. Barbera, S. & Peleg, B., 1988. "Strategy-Proof Voting Schemes With Continuous Preferences," UFAE and IAE Working Papers 91.88, Unitat de Fonaments de l'Anàlisi Econòmica (UAB) and Institut d'Anàlisi Econòmica (CSIC).
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:


    Access and download statistics


    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:qld:uq2004:449. 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: (SOE IT). General contact details of provider: .

    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.

    We have no references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.

    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.