IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/r/the/publsh/758.html
   My bibliography  Save this item

On the strategic use of attention grabbers

Citations

Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
as


Cited by:

  1. Arno Apffelstaedt & Lydia Mechtenberg, 2021. "Competition for Context-Sensitive Consumers," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(5), pages 2828-2844, May.
  2. Paola Manzini & Marco Mariotti, 2018. "Competing for Attention: Is the Showiest Also the Best?," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 128(609), pages 827-844, March.
  3. Demirkan, Yusufcan & Kimya, Mert, 2020. "Hazard rate, stochastic choice and consideration sets," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 142-150.
  4. Pedro Bordalo & Nicola Gennaioli & Andrei Shleifer, 2016. "Competition for Attention," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 83(2), pages 481-513.
  5. Olivier Gossner & Jakub Steiner & Colin Stewart, 2021. "Attention Please!," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 89(4), pages 1717-1751, July.
  6. Paola Manzini & Marco Mariotti, 2018. "Competing for Attention: Is the Showiest Also the Best?," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 128(609), pages 827-844, March.
  7. Paola Manzini & Marco Mariotti, 2014. "Stochastic Choice and Consideration Sets," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 82(3), pages 1153-1176, May.
  8. Sürücü, Oktay & Djawadi, Behnud Mir & Recker, Sonja, 2019. "The asymmetric dominance effect: Reexamination and extension in risky choice – An experimental study," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 102-122.
  9. Leontiou, Anastasia & Ziros, Nicholas, 2024. "“Tacit bundling” among rivals: Limited-availability bargains for loss-averse consumers," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 165(C).
  10. Kaiser Karen & Schwabe Rainer, 2012. "Preference for Variety," The B.E. Journal of Theoretical Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 12(1), pages 1-32, January.
  11. Saur, Marc P. & Schlatterer, Markus G. & Schmitt, Stefanie Y., 2022. "Limited perception and price discrimination in a model of horizontal product differentiation," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 134(C), pages 151-168.
  12. Levon Barseghyan & Francesca Molinari & Matthew Thirkettle, 2021. "Discrete Choice under Risk with Limited Consideration," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 111(6), pages 1972-2006, June.
  13. Kovach, Matthew, 2020. "Twisting the truth: foundations of wishful thinking," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 15(3), July.
  14. , & ,, 2013. "Choice by iterative search," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 8(3), September.
  15. Paola Manzini & Marco Mariotti, 2018. "Competing for Attention: Is the Showiest Also the Best?," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 128(609), pages 827-844, March.
  16. Michael Grubb, 2015. "Failing to Choose the Best Price: Theory, Evidence, and Policy," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 47(3), pages 303-340, November.
  17. Edgardo Lara Córdova & Javier A. Rodríguez‐Camacho, 2022. "Information availability and ability choice in a market for physicians," Metroeconomica, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 73(1), pages 245-267, February.
  18. Sürücü, Oktay, 2016. "Welfare improving discrimination based on cognitive limitations," Research in Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(4), pages 608-622.
  19. Karpov, Aleksandr, 2017. "Price competition and limited attention," Economics Discussion Papers 2017-89, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).
  20. Edward John Dorrell Webb, 2014. "Do we see monopoly or duopoly? The influence of perception on entry deterrence," Discussion Papers 14-20, University of Copenhagen. Department of Economics.
  21. Dahremöller, Carsten & Fels, Markus, 2015. "Product lines, product design, and limited attention," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 437-456.
  22. Sürücü, Oktay & Brangewitz, Sonja & Mir Djawadi, Behnud, 2017. "Asymmetric dominance effect with multiple decoys for low- and high-variance lotteries," Center for Mathematical Economics Working Papers 574, Center for Mathematical Economics, Bielefeld University.
  23. Castillo, Geoffrey, 2020. "The attraction effect and its explanations," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 123-147.
  24. Paola Manzini & Marco Mariotti, 2015. "Modelling Imperfect Attention," Working Papers 744, Queen Mary University of London, School of Economics and Finance.
  25. Suzuki, Toru, 2016. "Reminder game: Indirectness in persuasion," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 240-256.
  26. Paola Manzini & Marco Mariotti, 2014. "Stochastic Choice and Consideration Sets," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 82(3), pages 1153-1176, May.
  27. Paola Manzini & Marco Mariotti, 2015. "Modelling Imperfect Attention," Working Papers 744, Queen Mary University of London, School of Economics and Finance.
  28. Schmitt, Stefanie Yvonne, 2016. "Rational allocation of attention in decision-making," BERG Working Paper Series 114, Bamberg University, Bamberg Economic Research Group.
  29. Matthew Kovach & Gerelt Tserenjigmid, 2022. "Behavioral Foundations of Nested Stochastic Choice and Nested Logit," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 130(9), pages 2411-2461.
  30. Bleile, Jörg, 2016. "Limited Attention in Case-Based Belief Formation," Center for Mathematical Economics Working Papers 518, Center for Mathematical Economics, Bielefeld University.
  31. Liang, Hanchao & Yang, Chunpeng & Zhang, Rengui & Cai, Chuangqun, 2017. "Bounded rationality, anchoring-and-adjustment sentiment, and asset pricing," The North American Journal of Economics and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 40(C), pages 85-102.
  32. Toru Suzuki, 2012. "Persuasive Silence," Jena Economics Research Papers 2012-014, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena.
  33. Hefti, Andreas, 2018. "Limited attention, competition and welfare," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 178(C), pages 318-359.
IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.