Stochastic Choice and Consideration Sets
We model a boundedly rational agent who suffers from limited attention. The agent considers each feasible alternative with a given (unobservable) probability,the attention parameter, and then chooses the alternative that maximises a preference relation within the set of considered alternatives. We show that this random choice rule is the only one for which the impact of removing an alternative on the choice probability of any other alternative is asymmetric and menu independent. Both the preference relation and the attention parameters are identified uniquely by stochastic choice data.
|Date of creation:||01 Mar 2013|
|Date of revision:|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: School of Economics and Finance, University of St. Andrews, Fife KY16 9AL|
Phone: 01334 462420
Fax: 01334 462444
Web page: http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/economics/
More information through EDIRC
|Order Information:|| Email: |
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Alisdair McKay & Filip Matejka, 2011.
"Rational Inattention to Discrete Choices: A New Foundation for the Multinomial Logit Model,"
Boston University - Department of Economics - Working Papers Series
WP2011-026, Boston University - Department of Economics.
- 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 272-98, January.
- Alisdair McKay & Filip Matejka, 2011. "Rational Inattention to Discrete Choices: A New Foundation for the Multinomial Logit Model," 2011 Meeting Papers 535, Society for Economic Dynamics.
- Filip Matejka & Alisdair McKay, 2011. "Rational Inattention to Discrete Choices: A New Foundation for the Multinomial Logit Model," CERGE-EI Working Papers wp442, The Center for Economic Research and Graduate Education - Economics Institute, Prague.
- Christopher J. Tyson, 2012.
"Behavioral Implications of Shortlisting Procedures,"
697, Queen Mary University of London, School of Economics and Finance.
- Christopher Tyson, 2013. "Behavioral implications of shortlisting procedures," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 41(4), pages 941-963, October.
- Faruk Gul & Paulo Natenzon & Wolfgang Pesendorfer, 2014. "Random Choice as Behavioral Optimization," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 82, pages 1873-1912, 09.
- Mattsson, Lars-Goran & Weibull, Jorgen W., 2002. "Probabilistic choice and procedurally bounded rationality," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 41(1), pages 61-78, October.
- Nedungadi, Prakash, 1990. " Recall and Consumer Consideration Sets: Influencing Choice without Altering Brand Evaluations," Journal of Consumer Research, Oxford University Press, vol. 17(3), pages 263-76, December.
- Clark, Stephen A., 1995. "Indecisive choice theory," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 30(2), pages 155-170, October.
- Daniel McFadden, 2001.
American Economic Review,
American Economic Association, vol. 91(3), pages 351-378, June.
- Richard Mckelvey & Thomas Palfrey, 1998. "Quantal Response Equilibria for Extensive Form Games," Experimental Economics, Springer, vol. 1(1), pages 9-41, June.
- Jörg Rieskamp & Jerome R. Busemeyer & Barbara A. Mellers, 2006. "Extending the Bounds of Rationality: Evidence and Theories of Preferential Choice," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 44(3), pages 631-661, September.
- Yusufcan Masatlioglu & Daisuke Nakajima & Erkut Ozbay, 2009.
NajEcon Working Paper Reviews
- Voorneveld, Mark, 2003.
"Probabilistic choice in games: properties of Rosenthal's t-solutions,"
SSE/EFI Working Paper Series in Economics and Finance
542, Stockholm School of Economics, revised 31 Oct 2003.
- Mark Voorneveld, 2006. "Probabilistic Choice in Games: Properties of Rosenthal’s t-Solutions," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 34(1), pages 105-121, April.
- Kfir Eliaz & Ran Spiegler, 2011.
"Consideration Sets and Competitive Marketing,"
Review of Economic Studies,
Oxford University Press, vol. 78(1), pages 235-262.
- Eliaz, Kfir & Spiegler, Ran, 2006. "Consideration Sets and Competitive Marketing," MPRA Paper 21434, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 03 Sep 2009.
- Eliaz, Kfir & Spiegler, Ran, 2009. "Consideration Sets and Competitive Marketing," CEPR Discussion Papers 7456, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
- Spiegler, Ran & Eliaz, Kfir, 2011.
"On the strategic use of attention grabbers,"
Econometric Society, vol. 6(1), January.
- Anton A. Cheremukhin & Anna Popova & Antonella Tutino, 2011. "Experimental evidence on rational inattention," Working Papers 1112, Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas.
- Paola Manzini & Marco Mariotti, 2007. "Sequentially Rationalizable Choice," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 97(5), pages 1824-1839, December.
- David S. Ahn & Todd Sarver, 2013. "Preference for Flexibility and Random Choice," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 81(1), pages 341-361, 01.
- Michelle Sovinsky Goeree, 2005. "Advertising in the US Personal Computer Industry," Industrial Organization 0503002, EconWPA.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:san:wpecon:1303. 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: (the School of Economics)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.