IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/expeco/v27y2024i4d10.1007_s10683-024-09843-z.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Rational inattention in games: experimental evidence

Author

Listed:
  • David Almog

    (Northwestern University)

  • Daniel Martin

    (Northwestern University
    University of California)

Abstract

To investigate whether attention responds rationally to strategic incentives, we experimentally implement a buyer-seller game in which a fully informed seller makes a take-it-or-leave-it offer to a buyer who faces cognitive costs to process information about the offer’s value. We isolate the impact of seller strategies on buyer attention by exogenously varying the seller’s outside option, which leads sellers to price high more often. We find that buyers respond by making fewer mistakes conditional on value, which suggests that buyers exert higher attentional effort in response to the increased strategic incentives for paying attention. We show that a standard model of rational inattention based on Shannon mutual information cannot fully explain this change in buyer behavior. However, we identify another class of rational inattention models consistent with this behavioral pattern.

Suggested Citation

  • David Almog & Daniel Martin, 2024. "Rational inattention in games: experimental evidence," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 27(4), pages 715-742, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:kap:expeco:v:27:y:2024:i:4:d:10.1007_s10683-024-09843-z
    DOI: 10.1007/s10683-024-09843-z
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10683-024-09843-z
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10683-024-09843-z?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. Andrew Caplin & Dániel CsabaQuantCo & John Leahy & Oded Nov, 2020. "Rational Inattention, Competitive Supply, and Psychometrics," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 135(3), pages 1681-1724.
    2. Andrew Caplin, 2016. "Measuring and Modeling Attention," Annual Review of Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 8(1), pages 379-403, October.
    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. Andrew Caplin & Mark Dean, 2015. "Revealed Preference, Rational Inattention, and Costly Information Acquisition," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 105(7), pages 2183-2203, July.
    5. Ginger Zhe Jin & Michael Luca & Daniel Martin, 2021. "Is No News (Perceived As) Bad News? An Experimental Investigation of Information Disclosure," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 13(2), pages 141-173, May.
    6. Ken Binmore & Avner Shared & John Sutton, 1989. "An Outside Option Experiment," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 104(4), pages 753-770.
    7. Avoyan, Ala & Schotter, Andrew, 2020. "Attention in games: An experimental study," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 124(C).
    8. Matějka, Filip, 2015. "Rigid pricing and rationally inattentive consumer," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 158(PB), pages 656-678.
    9. Bartosz Maćkowiak & Filip Matějka & Mirko Wiederholt, 2023. "Rational Inattention: A Review," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 61(1), pages 226-273, March.
    10. Tommaso Denti & Massimo Marinacci & Aldo Rustichini, 2022. "Experimental Cost of Information," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 112(9), pages 3106-3123, September.
    11. Luciano Pomatto & Philipp Strack & Omer Tamuz, 2018. "The Cost of Information: The Case of Constant Marginal Costs," Papers 1812.04211, arXiv.org, revised Feb 2023.
    12. Andrew Caplin & Daniel Martin, 2021. "Comparison of Decisions under Unknown Experiments," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 129(11), pages 3185-3205.
    13. Doron Ravid, 2020. "Ultimatum Bargaining with Rational Inattention," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 110(9), pages 2948-2963, September.
    14. Colin F. Camerer & Richard H. Thaler, 1995. "Anomalies: Ultimatums, Dictators and Manners," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 9(2), pages 209-219, Spring.
    15. Ming Yang, 2020. "Optimality of Debt under Flexible Information Acquisition," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 87(1), pages 487-536.
    16. Mitzkewitz, Michael & Nagel, Rosemarie, 1993. "Experimental Results on Ultimatum Games with Incomplete Information," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 22(2), pages 171-198.
    17. Steffen Altmann & Andreas Grunewald & Jonas Radbruch, 2022. "Interventions and Cognitive Spillovers," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 89(5), pages 2293-2328.
    18. Avoyan, Ala & Romagnoli, Giorgia, 2023. "Paying for inattention," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 226(C).
    19. Elliot Lipnowski & Laurent Mathevet & Dong Wei, 2020. "Attention Management," American Economic Review: Insights, American Economic Association, vol. 2(1), pages 17-32, March.
    20. Yang, Ming, 2015. "Coordination with flexible information acquisition," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 158(PB), pages 721-738.
    21. Amnon Rapoport & Ido Erev & Rami Zwick, 1995. "An Experimental Study of Buyer-Seller Negotiation with One-Sided Incomplete Information and Time Discounting," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 41(3), pages 377-394, March.
    22. Isabelle Brocas & Juan D. Carrillo & Stephanie W. Wang & Colin F. Camerer, 2014. "Imperfect Choice or Imperfect Attention? Understanding Strategic Thinking in Private Information Games," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 81(3), pages 944-970.
    23. Dewan, Ambuj & Neligh, Nathaniel, 2020. "Estimating information cost functions in models of rational inattention," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 187(C).
    24. Mark Dean & Nathaniel Neligh, 2023. "Experimental Tests of Rational Inattention," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 131(12), pages 3415-3461.
    25. Luciano Pomatto & Philipp Strack & Omer Tamuz, 2023. "The Cost of Information: The Case of Constant Marginal Costs," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 113(5), pages 1360-1393, May.
    26. Rapoport, Amnon & Sundali, James A. & Seale, Darryl A., 1996. "Ultimatums in two-person bargaining with one-sided uncertainty: Demand games," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 30(2), pages 173-196, August.
    27. Martin, Daniel, 2017. "Strategic pricing with rational inattention to quality," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 131-145.
    28. Szkup, Michal & Trevino, Isabel, 2020. "Sentiments, strategic uncertainty, and information structures in coordination games," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 534-553.
    29. Bock, Olaf & Baetge, Ingmar & Nicklisch, Andreas, 2014. "hroot: Hamburg Registration and Organization Online Tool," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 117-120.
    30. Tamer Boyac? & Yalçın Akçay, 2018. "Pricing When Customers Have Limited Attention," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(7), pages 2995-3014, July.
    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. Bartosz Maćkowiak & Filip Matějka & Mirko Wiederholt, 2023. "Rational Inattention: A Review," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 61(1), pages 226-273, March.
    2. Avoyan, Ala & Romagnoli, Giorgia, 2023. "Paying for inattention," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 226(C).
    3. Tommaso Denti & Doron Ravid, 2023. "Robust Predictions in Games with Rational Inattention," Papers 2306.09964, arXiv.org.
    4. Flynn, Joel P. & Sastry, Karthik A., 2023. "Strategic mistakes," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 212(C).
    5. Matveenko, Andrei & Mikhalishchev, Sergei, 2021. "Attentional role of quota implementation," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 198(C).
    6. Heggedal, Tom-Reiel & Helland, Leif & Våge Knutsen, Magnus, 2022. "The power of outside options in the presence of obstinate types," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 454-468.
    7. Larionov, Daniil & Pham, Hien & Yamashita, Takuro & Zhu, Shuguang, 2021. "First Best Implementation with Costly Information Acquisition," TSE Working Papers 21-1261, Toulouse School of Economics (TSE), revised Apr 2022.
    8. Embrey, Matthew & Hyndman, Kyle & Riedl, Arno, 2021. "Bargaining with a residual claimant: An experimental study," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 335-354.
    9. SangMok Lee, 2022. "Preference Learning in School Choice Problems," Papers 2202.08366, arXiv.org, revised Mar 2023.
    10. Josie I. Chen & Kenju Kamei, 2018. "Disapproval aversion or inflated inequity acceptance? The impact of expressing emotions in ultimatum bargaining," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 21(4), pages 836-857, December.
    11. Larney, Andrea & Rotella, Amanda & Barclay, Pat, 2019. "Stake size effects in ultimatum game and dictator game offers: A meta-analysis," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 61-72.
    12. König-Kersting, Christian & Trautmann, Stefan T. & Vlahu, Razvan, 2022. "Bank instability: Interbank linkages and the role of disclosure," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 134(C).
    13. Guidon Fenig & Giovanni Gallipoli & Yoram Halevy, 2018. "Piercing the 'Payoff Function' Veil: Tracing Beliefs and Motives," Working Papers tecipa-619, University of Toronto, Department of Economics.
    14. Eva I. Hoppe & Patrick W. Schmitz, 2013. "Contracting under Incomplete Information and Social Preferences: An Experimental Study," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 80(4), pages 1516-1544.
    15. Klempt Charlotte & Pull Kerstin & Stadler Manfred, 2019. "Asymmetric Information in Simple Bargaining Games: An Experimental Study," German Economic Review, De Gruyter, vol. 20(1), pages 29-51, February.
    16. Despoina Alempaki & Andrew M. Colman & Felix Kölle & Graham Loomes & Briony D. Pulford, 2022. "Investigating the failure to best respond in experimental games," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 25(2), pages 656-679, April.
    17. Besancenot, Damien & Dubart, Delphine & Vranceanu, Radu, 2013. "The value of lies in an ultimatum game with imperfect information," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 239-247.
    18. Jan Hausfeld & Sven Resnjanskij, 2017. "Risky Decisions and the Opportunity Costs of Time," TWI Research Paper Series 108, Thurgauer Wirtschaftsinstitut, Universität Konstanz.
    19. Alex Lehr & Jana Vyrastekova & Agnes Akkerman & René Torenvlied, 2018. "Horizontal and vertical spillovers in wage bargaining: A theoretical framework and experimental evidence," Rationality and Society, , vol. 30(1), pages 3-53, February.
    20. Andrew Schotter & Isabel Trevino, 2021. "Is response time predictive of choice? An experimental study of threshold strategies," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 24(1), pages 87-117, March.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Rational inattention; Limited attention; Cognitive costs; Strategic pricing; Asymmetric information;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C91 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Individual Behavior
    • D82 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Asymmetric and Private Information; Mechanism Design
    • D83 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Search; Learning; Information and Knowledge; Communication; Belief; Unawareness
    • D90 - Microeconomics - - Micro-Based Behavioral Economics - - - General
    • D91 - Microeconomics - - Micro-Based Behavioral Economics - - - Role and Effects of Psychological, Emotional, Social, and Cognitive Factors on Decision Making

    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:kap:expeco:v:27:y:2024:i:4:d:10.1007_s10683-024-09843-z. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.