IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/nbr/nberwo/21617.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The Robustness of Tests for Consumer Choice Inconsistencies

Author

Listed:
  • Jason Abaluck
  • Jonathan Gruber

Abstract

We explore the in- and out- of sample robustness of tests for consumer choice inconsistencies based on parameter restrictions in parametric models, with a focus on tests proposed by Ketcham, Kuminoff and Powers (2015). We start by arguing that non-parametric alternatives are inherently conservative with respect to detecting mistakes (and one specific test proposed by KKP is incorrect). We then consider several proposed robustness checks of parametric models and argue that they do not separately identify misspecification and choice inconsistencies. We also show that, when implemented using a comprehensive goodness of fit measure, the Keane and Wolpin (2007) test of out of sample forecasting demonstrates that a model allowing for choice inconsistencies forecasts substantially better than one that does not. Finally, we explore the robustness of our 2011 results to alternative normative assumptions.

Suggested Citation

  • Jason Abaluck & Jonathan Gruber, 2015. "The Robustness of Tests for Consumer Choice Inconsistencies," NBER Working Papers 21617, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  • Handle: RePEc:nbr:nberwo:21617
    Note: AG EH PE
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.nber.org/papers/w21617.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. repec:mpr:mprres:7375 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Sumit Agarwal & John C. Driscoll & Xavier Gabaix & David I. Laibson, 2007. "The age of reason: financial decisions over the lifecycle," Working Paper Series WP-07-05, Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago.
    3. Jeffrey R. Kling & Sendhil Mullainathan & Eldar Shafir & Lee C. Vermeulen & Marian V. Wrobel, 2012. "Comparison Friction: Experimental Evidence from Medicare Drug Plans," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 127(1), pages 199-235.
    4. Jason Abaluck & Jonathan Gruber, 2011. "Heterogeneity in Choice Inconsistencies among the Elderly: Evidence from Prescription Drug Plan Choice," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 101(3), pages 377-381, May.
    5. Michael P. Keane & Kenneth I. Wolpin, 2007. "Exploring The Usefulness Of A Nonrandom Holdout Sample For Model Validation: Welfare Effects On Female Behavior," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 48(4), pages 1351-1378, November.
    6. Jonathan D. Ketcham & Nicolai V. Kuminoff & Christopher A. Powers, 2015. "Which Models Can We Trust to Evaluate Consumer Decision Making? Comment on “Choice Inconsistencies among the Elderly”," NBER Working Papers 21387, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    7. Jason T. Abaluck & Jonathan Gruber, 2009. "Choice Inconsistencies Among the Elderly: Evidence from Plan Choice in the Medicare Part D Program," NBER Working Papers 14759, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    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. Jason Abaluck & Jonathan Gruber, 2016. "Choice Inconsistencies among the Elderly: Evidence from Plan Choice in the Medicare Part D Program: Reply," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 106(12), pages 3962-3987, December.
    2. Kate Ho & Joseph Hogan & Fiona Scott Morton, 2017. "The impact of consumer inattention on insurer pricing in the Medicare Part D program," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 48(4), pages 877-905, December.
    3. Jason Abaluck & Jonathan Gruber, 2013. "Evolving Choice Inconsistencies in Choice of Prescription Drug Insurance," NBER Working Papers 19163, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    4. Liran Einav & Amy Finkelstein & Maria Polyakova, 2018. "Private Provision of Social Insurance: Drug-Specific Price Elasticities and Cost Sharing in Medicare Part D," American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, American Economic Association, vol. 10(3), pages 122-153, August.
    5. Michele Fioretti & Hongming Wang, 2023. "Performance Pay in Insurance Markets: Evidence from Medicare," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 105(5), pages 1128-1144, September.
    6. Determann, Domino & Lambooij, Mattijs S. & de Bekker-Grob, Esther W. & Hayen, Arthur P. & Varkevisser, Marco & Schut, Frederik T. & Wit, G. Ardine de, 2016. "What health plans do people prefer? The trade-off between premium and provider choice," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 165(C), pages 10-18.
    7. Houde, Sébastien & Myers, Erica, 2021. "Are consumers attentive to local energy costs? Evidence from the appliance market," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 201(C).
    8. Genakos, Christos & Roumanias, Costas & Valletti, Tommaso, 2023. "Is having an expert “friend” enough? An analysis of consumer switching behavior in mobile telephony," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 213(C), pages 359-372.
    9. Jonathan D. Ketcham & Nicolai V. Kuminoff & Christopher A. Powers, 2016. "Estimating the Heterogeneous Welfare Effects of Choice Architecture: An Application to the Medicare Prescription Drug Insurance Market," NBER Working Papers 22732, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    10. repec:spo:wpecon:info:hdl:2441/2ioennpq5m90holakkatq7cmms is not listed on IDEAS
    11. Benjamin R. Handel & Jonathan T. Kolstad & Johannes Spinnewijn, 2019. "Information Frictions and Adverse Selection: Policy Interventions in Health Insurance Markets," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 101(2), pages 326-340, May.
    12. Decarolis, Francesco, 2015. "The unintended effects of the Medicare Part D low income subsidy," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 119(5), pages 597-603.
    13. Martin Gaynor & Kate Ho & Robert J. Town, 2015. "The Industrial Organization of Health-Care Markets," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 53(2), pages 235-284, June.
    14. Kowalski, Amanda E., 2015. "Estimating the tradeoff between risk protection and moral hazard with a nonlinear budget set model of health insurance," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 122-135.
    15. Anell, Anders & Dietrichson, Jens & Ellegård, Lina Maria & Kjellsson, Gustav, 2021. "Information, switching costs, and consumer choice: Evidence from two randomised field experiments in Swedish primary health care," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 196(C).
    16. Lee, Ajin & Vabson, Boris, 2024. "The value of improving insurance quality: Evidence from long-run Medicaid attrition," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 94(C).
    17. Duggan, Mark & Starc, Amanda & Vabson, Boris, 2016. "Who benefits when the government pays more? Pass-through in the Medicare Advantage program," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 50-67.
    18. Pinka Chatterji & Chun-Yu Ho & Tao Jin & Yichuan Wang, 2024. "Does Consolidation in Insurer Markets affect Insurance Enrollment and Drug Expenditures? Evidence from Medicare Part D," NBER Working Papers 32267, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    19. Wuppermann, Amelie & Bauhoff, Sebastian & Grabka, Markus, 2014. "The Price Sensitivity of Health Plan Choice among Retirees: Evidence from the German Social Health Insurance," VfS Annual Conference 2014 (Hamburg): Evidence-based Economic Policy 100352, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    20. Loewenstein, George & Friedman, Joelle Y. & McGill, Barbara & Ahmad, Sarah & Linck, Suzanne & Sinkula, Stacey & Beshears, John & Choi, James J. & Kolstad, Jonathan & Laibson, David & Madrian, Brigitte, 2013. "Consumers’ misunderstanding of health insurance," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(5), pages 850-862.
    21. Ericson, Keith M. Marzilli & Starc, Amanda, 2016. "How product standardization affects choice: Evidence from the Massachusetts Health Insurance Exchange," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 71-85.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • D12 - Microeconomics - - Household Behavior - - - Consumer Economics: Empirical Analysis
    • I11 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - Analysis of Health Care Markets
    • J14 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Demographic Economics - - - Economics of the Elderly; Economics of the Handicapped; Non-Labor Market Discrimination

    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:nbr:nberwo:21617. 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: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/nberrus.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.