IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/qmw/qmwecw/697.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Behavioral Implications of Shortlisting Procedures

Author

Listed:
  • Christopher J. Tyson

    (Queen Mary, University of London)

Abstract

We consider two-stage "shortlisting procedures" in which the menu of alternatives is first pruned by some process or criterion and then a binary relation is maximized. Given a particular first-stage process, our main result supplies a necessary and sufficient condition for choice data to be consistent with a procedure in the designated class. This result applies to any class of procedures with a certain lattice structure, including the cases of "consideration filters," "satisficing with salience effects," and "rational shortlist methods." The theory avoids background assumptions made for mathematical convenience; in this and other respects following Richter's classical analysis of preference-maximizing choice in the absence of shortlisting.

Suggested Citation

  • Christopher J. Tyson, 2012. "Behavioral Implications of Shortlisting Procedures," Working Papers 697, Queen Mary University of London, School of Economics and Finance.
  • Handle: RePEc:qmw:qmwecw:697
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.qmul.ac.uk/sef/media/econ/research/workingpapers/2012/items/wp697.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Stephen A. Clark, 1988. "An extension theorem for rational choice functions," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 55(3), pages 485-492.
    2. 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.
    3. Kfir Eliaz & Ran Spiegler, 2011. "Consideration Sets and Competitive Marketing," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 78(1), pages 235-262.
    4. Nash, John, 1950. "The Bargaining Problem," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 18(2), pages 155-162, April.
    5. Fishburn, Peter C, 1975. "Semiorders and Choice Functions," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 43(5-6), pages 975-977, Sept.-Nov.
    6. Tyson, Christopher J., 2008. "Cognitive constraints, contraction consistency, and the satisficing criterion," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 138(1), pages 51-70, January.
    7. Kotaro Suzumura, 1976. "Rational Choice and Revealed Preference," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 43(1), pages 149-158.
    8. Walter Bossert & Yves Sprumont & Kotaro Suzumura, 2006. "Rationalizability of choice functions on general domains without full transitivity," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 27(3), pages 435-458, December.
    9. Sen, Amartya K, 1977. "Social Choice Theory: A Re-examination," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 45(1), pages 53-89, January.
    10. Amartya K. Sen, 1971. "Choice Functions and Revealed Preference," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 38(3), pages 307-317.
    11. Spears Dean, 2011. "Intertemporal Bounded Rationality as Consideration Sets with Contraction Consistency," The B.E. Journal of Theoretical Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 11(1), pages 1-16, June.
    12. Herbert A. Simon, 1955. "A Behavioral Model of Rational Choice," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 69(1), pages 99-118.
    13. Amartya Sen, 1969. "Quasi-Transitivity, Rational Choice and Collective Decisions," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 36(3), pages 381-393.
    14. Paola Manzini & Marco Mariotti, 2007. "Sequentially Rationalizable Choice," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 97(5), pages 1824-1839, December.
    15. Marco Mariotti, 2008. "What kind of preference maximization does the weak axiom of revealed preference characterize?," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 35(2), pages 403-406, May.
    16. Yusufcan Masatlioglu & Daisuke Nakajima & Erkut Y. Ozbay, 2012. "Revealed Attention," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 102(5), pages 2183-2205, August.
    17. Georges Bordes, 1976. "Consistency, Rationality and Collective Choice," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 43(3), pages 451-457.
    18. 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.
    19. Johnson, Mark R. & Dean, Richard A., 2001. "Locally complete path independent choice functions and their lattices," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 42(1), pages 53-87, July.
    20. Tyson, Christopher J., 2008. "Cognitive constraints, contraction consistency, and the satisficing criterion," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 138(1), pages 51-70, January.
    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. Horan, Sean, 2016. "A simple model of two-stage choice," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 162(C), pages 372-406.
    2. Yuta Inoue & Koji Shirai, 2018. "Limited consideration and limited data: revealed preference tests and observable restrictions," Discussion Paper Series 176, School of Economics, Kwansei Gakuin University, revised Mar 2018.
    3. 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.
    4. Yusufcan Masatlioglu & Elchin Suleymanov, 2021. "Decision making within a product network," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 71(1), pages 185-209, February.
    5. Paola Manzini & Marco Mariotti, 2014. "Stochastic Choice and Consideration Sets," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 82(3), pages 1153-1176, May.
    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. Juan Lleras & Yusufcan Masatlioglu & Daisuke Nakajima & Erkut Ozbay, 2021. "Path-Independent Consideration," Games, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-10, March.
    8. Yuta Inoue & Koji Shirai, 2018. "Limited consideration and limited data: revealed preference tests and observable restrictions," Discussion Paper Series 176-2, School of Economics, Kwansei Gakuin University, revised Aug 2019.
    9. Apesteguia, Jose & Ballester, Miguel A., 2013. "Choice by sequential procedures," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 77(1), pages 90-99.
    10. Domenico Cantone & Alfio Giarlotta & Stephen Watson, 2019. "Congruence relations on a choice space," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 52(2), pages 247-294, February.
    11. Paola Manzini & Marco Mariotti, 2014. "Stochastic Choice and Consideration Sets," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 82(3), pages 1153-1176, May.
    12. Geoffroy de Clippel & Kareen Rozen, 2012. "Bounded Rationality and Limited Datasets: Testable Implications, Identifiability, and Out-of-Sample Prediction," Working Papers 2012-7, Brown University, Department of Economics.
    13. 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.
    14. Thomas Demuynck & Christian Seel, 2018. "Revealed Preference with Limited Consideration," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 10(1), pages 102-131, February.
    15. Lin, Lihui, 2021. "Does the procedure matter?," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 90(C).
    16. Yuta Inoue & Koji Shirai, 2016. "Limited consideration and limited data," Discussion Paper Series 149, School of Economics, Kwansei Gakuin University, revised Oct 2016.
    17. García-Sanz, María D. & Alcantud, José Carlos R., 2015. "Sequential rationalization of multivalued choice," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 29-33.
    18. Freeman, David J., 2017. "Preferred personal equilibrium and simple choices," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 143(C), pages 165-172.
    19. Rohan Dutta & Sean Horan, 2015. "Inferring Rationales from Choice: Identification for Rational Shortlist Methods," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 7(4), pages 179-201, November.
    20. Valentino Dardanoni & Paola Manzini & Marco Mariotti & Christopher J. Tyson, 2020. "Inferring Cognitive Heterogeneity From Aggregate Choices," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 88(3), pages 1269-1296, May.
    21. Valentino Dardanoni & Paola Manzini & Marco Mariotti & Christopher J. Tyson, 2020. "Inferring Cognitive Heterogeneity From Aggregate Choices," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 88(3), pages 1269-1296, May.
    22. Rochanahastin, Nuttaporn, 2020. "Assessing axioms of theories of limited attention," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 84(C).
    23. Cuhadaroglu, Tugce, 2017. "Choosing on influence," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 12(2), May.
    24. Domenico Cantone & Alfio Giarlotta & Stephen Watson, 2021. "Choice resolutions," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 56(4), pages 713-753, May.

    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. 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.
    2. Manzini, Paola & Mariotti, Marco & Tyson, Christopher J., 2016. "Partial knowledge restrictions on the two-stage threshold model of choice," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 41-47.
    3. Manzini, Paola & Mariotti, Marco & Tyson, Christopher J, 2015. "Partial Knowledge Restrictions on theTwo-Stage Threshold Model of Choice," 2007 Annual Meeting, July 29-August 1, 2007, Portland, Oregon TN 2015-58, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    4. Manzini, Paola & Mariotti, Marco & Tyson, Christopher J., 2016. "Partial knowledge restrictions on the two-stage threshold model of choice," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 41-47.
    5. Tyson, Christopher J., 2008. "Cognitive constraints, contraction consistency, and the satisficing criterion," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 138(1), pages 51-70, January.
    6. Susumu Cato, 2018. "Choice functions and weak Nash axioms," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 22(3), pages 159-176, December.
    7. Salvador Barberà & Alejandro Neme, 2015. "Ordinal Relative Satisficing Behavior: Theory and Experiments," Working Papers 790, Barcelona Graduate School of Economics.
    8. Bleile, Jörg, 2016. "Limited Attention in Case-Based Belief Formation," Center for Mathematical Economics Working Papers 518, Center for Mathematical Economics, Bielefeld University.
    9. Manzini, Paola & Mariotti, Marco & Tyson, Christopher J., 2011. "Manipulation of Choice Behavior," IZA Discussion Papers 5891, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    10. Georgios Gerasimou, 2016. "Partially dominant choice," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 61(1), pages 127-145, January.
    11. Juan P. Aguilera & Levent Ülkü, 2017. "On the maximization of menu-dependent interval orders," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 48(2), pages 357-366, February.
    12. Zhao Yong & Wu Xinlin, 2016. "Retracted: Intrinsic Preferences, Revealed Preferences and Bounded Rational Decisions," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 33(1), pages 205-205, January.
    13. Dean, Mark & Kıbrıs, Özgür & Masatlioglu, Yusufcan, 2017. "Limited attention and status quo bias," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 169(C), pages 93-127.
    14. Papi, Mauro, 2012. "Satisficing choice procedures," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 84(1), pages 451-462.
    15. Ghosal, Sayantan & Dalton, Patricio, 2013. "Characterizing Behavioral Decisions with Choice Data," CAGE Online Working Paper Series 107, Competitive Advantage in the Global Economy (CAGE).
    16. Walter Bossert & Yves Sprumont, 2009. "Non‐Deteriorating Choice," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 76(302), pages 337-363, April.
    17. Horan, Sean, 2016. "A simple model of two-stage choice," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 162(C), pages 372-406.
    18. Valentino Dardanoni & Paola Manzini & Marco Mariotti & Christopher J. Tyson, 2020. "Inferring Cognitive Heterogeneity From Aggregate Choices," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 88(3), pages 1269-1296, May.
    19. Georgios, Gerasimou, 2013. "A Behavioural Model of Choice in the Presence of Decision Conflict," SIRE Discussion Papers 2013-25, Scottish Institute for Research in Economics (SIRE).
    20. Yusufcan Masatlioglu & Daisuke Nakajima & Erkut Y. Ozbay, 2012. "Revealed Attention," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 102(5), pages 2183-2205, August.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Attention; Complete lattice; Consideration set; Revealed preference;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D01 - Microeconomics - - General - - - Microeconomic Behavior: Underlying Principles
    • D03 - Microeconomics - - General - - - Behavioral Microeconomics: Underlying Principles

    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:qmw:qmwecw:697. 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/deqmwuk.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: Nicholas Owen The email address of this maintainer does not seem to be valid anymore. Please ask Nicholas Owen to update the entry or send us the correct address (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/deqmwuk.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.