IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/arx/papers/2405.13945.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Exogenous Consideration and Extended Random Utility

Author

Listed:
  • Roy Allen

Abstract

In a consideration set model, an individual maximizes utility among the considered alternatives. I relate a consideration set additive random utility model to classic discrete choice and the extended additive random utility model, in which utility can be $-\infty$ for infeasible alternatives. When observable utility shifters are bounded, all three models are observationally equivalent. Moreover, they have the same counterfactual bounds and welfare formulas for changes in utility shifters like price. For attention interventions, welfare cannot change in the full consideration model but is completely unbounded in the limited consideration model. The identified set for consideration set probabilities has a minimal width for any bounded support of shifters, but with unbounded support it is a point: identification "towards" infinity does not resemble identification "at" infinity.

Suggested Citation

  • Roy Allen, 2024. "Exogenous Consideration and Extended Random Utility," Papers 2405.13945, arXiv.org.
  • Handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2405.13945
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://arxiv.org/pdf/2405.13945
    File Function: Latest version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Mogens Fosgerau & Emerson Melo & André de Palma & Matthew Shum, 2020. "Discrete Choice And Rational Inattention: A General Equivalence Result," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 61(4), pages 1569-1589, November.
    2. Andrew Caplin & Mark Dean & John Leahy, 2019. "Rational Inattention, Optimal Consideration Sets, and Stochastic Choice," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 86(3), pages 1061-1094.
    3. Xiaoxia Shi & Matthew Shum & Wei Song, 2018. "Estimating Semi‐Parametric Panel Multinomial Choice Models Using Cyclic Monotonicity," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 86(2), pages 737-761, March.
    4. Paola Manzini & Marco Mariotti, 2014. "Stochastic Choice and Consideration Sets," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 82(3), pages 1153-1176, May.
    5. 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 272-298, January.
    6. Small, Kenneth A & Rosen, Harvey S, 1981. "Applied Welfare Economics with Discrete Choice Models," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 49(1), pages 105-130, January.
    7. Kashaev, Nail & Aguiar, Victor H., 2022. "A random attention and utility model," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 204(C).
    8. Aguiar, Victor H., 2017. "Random categorization and bounded rationality," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 159(C), pages 46-52.
    9. Hauser, John R & Wernerfelt, Birger, 1990. "An Evaluation Cost Model of Consideration Sets," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 16(4), pages 393-408, March.
    10. Magnac, Thierry & Maurin, Eric, 2007. "Identification and information in monotone binary models," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 139(1), pages 76-104, July.
    11. Michelle Sovinsky Goeree, 2008. "Limited Information and Advertising in the U.S. Personal Computer Industry," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 76(5), pages 1017-1074, September.
    12. Basar, Gözen & Bhat, Chandra, 2004. "A parameterized consideration set model for airport choice: an application to the San Francisco Bay Area," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 38(10), pages 889-904, December.
    13. Shakeeb Khan & Elie Tamer, 2010. "Irregular Identification, Support Conditions, and Inverse Weight Estimation," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 78(6), pages 2021-2042, November.
    14. Christopher T. Conlon & Julie Holland Mortimer, 2013. "Demand Estimation under Incomplete Product Availability," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 5(4), pages 1-30, November.
    15. Raj Chetty, 2009. "Sufficient Statistics for Welfare Analysis: A Bridge Between Structural and Reduced-Form Methods," Annual Review of Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 1(1), pages 451-488, May.
    16. Victor H. Aguiar & Maria Jose Boccardi & Nail Kashaev & Jeongbin Kim, 2023. "Random utility and limited consideration," Quantitative Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 14(1), pages 71-116, January.
    17. Matzkin, Rosa L., 1993. "Nonparametric identification and estimation of polychotomous choice models," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 58(1-2), pages 137-168, July.
    18. Richard L. Brady & John Rehbeck, 2016. "Menu‐Dependent Stochastic Feasibility," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 84, pages 1203-1223, May.
    19. Crawford, Gregory S. & Griffith, Rachel & Iaria, Alessandro, 2021. "A survey of preference estimation with unobserved choice set heterogeneity," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 222(1), pages 4-43.
    20. Sørensen, Jesper R.-V. & Fosgerau, Mogens, 2022. "How McFadden met Rockafellar and learned to do more with less," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 100(C).
    21. Chiang, Jeongwen & Chib, Siddhartha & Narasimhan, Chakravarthi, 1998. "Markov chain Monte Carlo and models of consideration set and parameter heterogeneity," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 89(1-2), pages 223-248, November.
    22. Koning, Ruud H. & Ridder, Geert, 1994. "On the compatibility of nested logit models with utility maximization : A comment," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 63(2), pages 389-396, August.
    23. Jason Abaluck & Abi Adams-Prassl, 2021. "What do Consumers Consider Before They Choose? Identification from Asymmetric Demand Responses," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 136(3), pages 1611-1663.
    24. Kohei Kawaguchi & Kosuke Uetake & Yasutora Watanabe, 2021. "Designing Context-Based Marketing: Product Recommendations Under Time Pressure," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(9), pages 5642-5659, September.
    25. Nail Kashaev & Natalia Lazzati & Ruli Xiao, 2023. "Peer Effects in Consideration and Preferences," Papers 2310.12272, arXiv.org, revised Jan 2024.
    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. Victor H. Aguiar & Maria Jose Boccardi & Nail Kashaev & Jeongbin Kim, 2023. "Random utility and limited consideration," Quantitative Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 14(1), pages 71-116, January.
    2. Kashaev, Nail & Aguiar, Victor H., 2022. "A random attention and utility model," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 204(C).
    3. Kovach, Matthew & Suleymanov, Elchin, 2023. "Reference dependence and random attention," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 215(C), pages 421-441.
    4. Crawford, Gregory S. & Griffith, Rachel & Iaria, Alessandro, 2021. "A survey of preference estimation with unobserved choice set heterogeneity," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 222(1), pages 4-43.
    5. Roy Allen & John Rehbeck, 2020. "Identification of Random Coefficient Latent Utility Models," Papers 2003.00276, arXiv.org.
    6. Helmers, Christian & Krishnan, Pramila & Patnam, Manasa, 2019. "Attention and saliency on the internet: Evidence from an online recommendation system," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 161(C), pages 216-242.
    7. Nail Kashaev & Natalia Lazzati, 2019. "Peer Effects in Random Consideration Sets," Papers 1904.06742, arXiv.org, revised May 2021.
    8. 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.
    9. 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.
    10. Ben Aoki-Sherwood & Catherine Bregou & David Liben-Nowell & Kiran Tomlinson & Thomas Zeng, 2024. "Bounding Consideration Probabilities in Consider-Then-Choose Ranking Models," Papers 2401.11016, arXiv.org.
    11. Han Qiu, 2018. "An Inattention Model for Traveler Behavior with e-Coupons," Papers 1901.05070, arXiv.org.
    12. Yusufcan Masatlioglu & Daisuke Nakajima & Erkut Y. Ozbay, 2012. "Revealed Attention," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 102(5), pages 2183-2205, August.
    13. Larry G Epstein & Kaushil Patel, 2024. "Identifying Heterogeneous Decision Rules From Choices When Menus Are Unobserved," Papers 2405.09500, arXiv.org.
    14. Flynn, Joel P. & Sastry, Karthik A., 2023. "Strategic mistakes," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 212(C).
    15. Martin Bustos, 2024. "Identification with Posterior-Separable Information Costs," Papers 2402.09789, arXiv.org.
    16. Griffith, Rachel & Crawford, Gregory & Iaria, Alessandro, 2016. "Preference Estimation with Unobserved Choice Set Heterogeneity using Sufficient Sets," CEPR Discussion Papers 11675, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    17. Yaron Azrieli & John Rehbeck, 2022. "Marginal stochastic choice," Papers 2208.08492, arXiv.org.
    18. Rehbeck, John, 2024. "A menu dependent Luce model with a numeraire," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 110(C).
    19. Gibbard, Peter, 2021. "Disentangling preferences and limited attention: Random-utility models with consideration sets," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 94(C).
    20. Lindbeck, Assar & Weibull, Jörgen, 2020. "Delegation of investment decisions, and optimal remuneration of agents," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 129(C).

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:arx:papers:2405.13945. 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: arXiv administrators (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://arxiv.org/ .

    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.