IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/edn/sirdps/168.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

A Salience Theory of Choice Errors

Author

Listed:
  • Manzini, Paola
  • Mariotti, Marco

Abstract

We study a psychologically based foundation for choice errors. The decision maker applies a preference ranking after forming a 'consideration set' prior to choosing an alternative. Membership of the consideration set is determined both by the alternative specific salience and by the rationality of the agent (his general propensity to consider all alternatives). The model turns out to include a logit formulation as a special case. In general, it has a rich set of implications both for exogenous parameters and for a situation in which alternatives can a¤ect their own salience (salience games). Such implications are relevant to assess the link between 'revealed' preferences and 'true' preferences: for example, less rational agents may paradoxically express their preference through choice more truthfully than more rational agents.

Suggested Citation

  • Manzini, Paola & Mariotti, Marco, 2010. "A Salience Theory of Choice Errors," SIRE Discussion Papers 2010-37, Scottish Institute for Research in Economics (SIRE).
    • Handle: RePEc:edn:sirdps:168
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10943/168
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ariel Rubinstein & Yuval Salant, 2012. "Eliciting Welfare Preferences from Behavioural Data Sets," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 79(1), pages 375-387.
    2. Nedungadi, Prakash, 1990. "Recall and Consumer Consideration Sets: Influencing Choice without Altering Brand Evaluations," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 17(3), pages 263-276, December.
    3. Kfir Eliaz & Ran Spiegler, 2011. "Consideration Sets and Competitive Marketing," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 78(1), pages 235-262.
    4. Richard Mckelvey & Thomas Palfrey, 1998. "Quantal Response Equilibria for Extensive Form Games," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 1(1), pages 9-41, June.
    5. Daniel McFadden, 2001. "Economic Choices," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 91(3), pages 351-378, June.
    6. McFadden, Daniel, 1974. "The measurement of urban travel demand," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 3(4), pages 303-328, November.
    7. Paola Manzini & Marco Mariotti, 2007. "Sequentially Rationalizable Choice," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 97(5), pages 1824-1839, December.
    8. 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.
    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. Paola Manzini & Marco Mariotti, 2014. "Stochastic Choice and Consideration Sets," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 82(3), pages 1153-1176, May.
    2. Yusufcan Masatlioglu & Daisuke Nakajima & Erkut Y. Ozbay, 2012. "Revealed Attention," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 102(5), pages 2183-2205, August.
    3. , & ,, 2013. "Choice by iterative search," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 8(3), September.
    4. 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.
    5. Robert Sugden & Jiwei Zheng, 2018. "Do Consumers Take Advantage of Common Pricing Standards? An Experimental Investigation," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(5), pages 2126-2143, May.
    6. Paola Manzini & Marco Mariotti, 2014. "Stochastic Choice and Consideration Sets," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 82(3), pages 1153-1176, May.
    7. Bleile, Jörg, 2016. "Limited Attention in Case-Based Belief Formation," Center for Mathematical Economics Working Papers 518, Center for Mathematical Economics, Bielefeld University.
    8. Kops, Christopher, 2022. "Cluster-shortlisted choice," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 102(C).
    9. Guney, Begum, 2014. "A theory of iterative choice in lists," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 26-32.
    10. Manzini, Paola & Mariotti, Marco, 2010. "Moody choice," SIRE Discussion Papers 2010-15, Scottish Institute for Research in Economics (SIRE).
    11. Francisco Silva & Samir Mamadehussene, 2020. "The Equivalence Between Sequential and Simultaneous Firm Decisions," Documentos de Trabajo 541, Instituto de Economia. Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile..
    12. Alvaro Sandroni & Leo Katz, 2024. "The leveling axiom," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 96(1), pages 135-152, February.
    13. Zhenghui Sha & Yun Huang & Jiawei Sophia Fu & Mingxian Wang & Yan Fu & Noshir Contractor & Wei Chen, 2018. "A Network-Based Approach to Modeling and Predicting Product Coconsideration Relations," Complexity, Hindawi, vol. 2018, pages 1-14, January.
    14. 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.
    15. Suzuki, Toru, 2016. "Reminder game: Indirectness in persuasion," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 240-256.
    16. David Card, 2022. "Design-Based Research in Empirical Microeconomics," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 112(6), pages 1773-1781, June.
    17. Andrew Caplin & Mark Dean & Daniel Martin, 2011. "Search and Satisficing," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 101(7), pages 2899-2922, December.
    18. Karagözoğlu, Emin & Keskin, Kerim, 2024. "Consideration sets and reference points in a dynamic bargaining game," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 219(C), pages 381-403.
    19. Scharfenaker, Ellis, 2020. "Implications of quantal response statistical equilibrium," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 119(C).
    20. 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.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Discrete choice; Random utility; Logit model; Consideration sets; bounded rationality;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D0 - Microeconomics - - General

    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:edn:sirdps:168. 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: Research Office (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/sireeuk.html .

    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.