IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/soceco/v90y2021ics2214804320306613.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Does the procedure matter?

Author

Listed:
  • Lin, Lihui

Abstract

When searching for which products to buy, consumers are typically bombarded with options. Some suppliers try and simplify the issue of decision-making for their potential buyers in some way. One typical procedure used to ease the decision-making process for potential customers is to present the products in sequential pages and request shoppers to select an item from each page, entering them into a wish list from which the final choice will be made. This study experimentally investigates how the final decision is affected by the number of items on each page and, hence, by the number of items in a wish list. The parameters of a stochastic model are estimated to ‘explain’ the data, in particular, examining the noisiness of the choices at each stage. The results show that procedure matters and that the trade-off between an increased number of options per page and an increased number of pages is indeed influential.

Suggested Citation

  • Lin, Lihui, 2021. "Does the procedure matter?," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 90(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:soceco:v:90:y:2021:i:c:s2214804320306613
    DOI: 10.1016/j.socec.2020.101618
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214804320306613
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.socec.2020.101618?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jose Apesteguia & Miguel A. Ballester, 2018. "Monotone Stochastic Choice Models: The Case of Risk and Time Preferences," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 126(1), pages 74-106.
    2. Tibor Besedes & Cary Deck & Sudipta Sarangi & Mikhael Shor, 2015. "Reducing Choice Overload without Reducing Choices," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 97(4), pages 793-802, October.
    3. Apesteguia, Jose & Ballester, Miguel A., 2013. "Choice by sequential procedures," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 77(1), pages 90-99.
    4. repec:tpr:restat:v:97:y:2015:i:5:p:793-802 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. Wilcox, Nathaniel T., 2011. "'Stochastically more risk averse:' A contextual theory of stochastic discrete choice under risk," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 162(1), pages 89-104, May.
    6. Matteo Carandini, 2004. "Amplification of Trial-to-Trial Response Variability by Neurons in Visual Cortex," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 2(9), pages 1-1, August.
    7. 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.
    8. Paola Manzini & Marco Mariotti, 2007. "Sequentially Rationalizable Choice," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 97(5), pages 1824-1839, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. Özgür Kıbrıs & Yusufcan Masatlioglu & Elchin Suleymanov, 2023. "A theory of reference point formation," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 75(1), pages 137-166, January.
    5. Horan, Sean, 2016. "A simple model of two-stage choice," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 162(C), pages 372-406.
    6. García-Sanz, María D. & Alcantud, José Carlos R., 2015. "Sequential rationalization of multivalued choice," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 29-33.
    7. 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.
    8. Freeman, David J., 2017. "Preferred personal equilibrium and simple choices," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 143(C), pages 165-172.
    9. Lleras, Juan Sebastián & Masatlioglu, Yusufcan & Nakajima, Daisuke & Ozbay, Erkut Y., 2017. "When more is less: Limited consideration," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 170(C), pages 70-85.
    10. Bhavook Bhardwaj & Kriti Manocha, 2021. "Choice by Rejection," Papers 2108.07424, arXiv.org.
    11. Mira Frick & Ryota Iijima & Tomasz Strzalecki, 2019. "Dynamic Random Utility," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 87(6), pages 1941-2002, November.
    12. Jose Apesteguia & Miguel A. Ballester, 2015. "A Measure of Rationality and Welfare," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 123(6), pages 1278-1310.
    13. Thomas Demuynck, 2014. "The computational complexity of rationalizing Pareto optimal choice behavior," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 42(3), pages 529-549, March.
    14. Xiaosheng Mu, 2021. "Sequential Choice with Incomplete Preferences," Working Papers 2021-35, Princeton University. Economics Department..
    15. 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.
    16. Alfio Giarlotta & Angelo Petralia & Stephen Watson, 2022. "On the number of non-isomorphic choices on four elements," Papers 2206.06840, arXiv.org.
    17. Wilfried Youmbi, 2024. "Nonparametric Analysis of Random Utility Models Robust to Nontransitive Preferences," Papers 2406.13969, arXiv.org.
    18. Sophie Bade, 2016. "Pareto-optimal matching allocation mechanisms for boundedly rational agents," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 47(3), pages 501-510, October.
    19. Kirchkamp, Oliver & Oechssler, Joerg & Sofianos, Andis, 2021. "The Binary Lottery Procedure does not induce risk neutrality in the Holt & Laury and Eckel & Grossman tasks," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 185(C), pages 348-369.
    20. Glenn W. Harrison & Morten I. Lau & Hong Il Yoo, 2020. "Risk Attitudes, Sample Selection, and Attrition in a Longitudinal Field Experiment," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 102(3), pages 552-568, July.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Sequential Decision-Making; Online Behaviour; Choice Overload; Experiment; Stochastic Risk Aversion;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C91 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Individual Behavior
    • D91 - Microeconomics - - Micro-Based Behavioral Economics - - - Role and Effects of Psychological, Emotional, Social, and Cognitive Factors on Decision Making
    • O33 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Technological Change: Choices and Consequences; Diffusion Processes
    • D81 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Criteria for Decision-Making under Risk and Uncertainty

    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:eee:soceco:v:90:y:2021:i:c:s2214804320306613. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/inca/620175 .

    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.