Advertisement

The complexity of shelflisting

  • Yongjie Yang
  • Dinko Dimitrov
Article
  • 15 Downloads

Abstract

Optimal shelflisting invites profit maximization to become sensitive to the ways in which purchasing decisions are order-dependent. We study the computational complexity of the corresponding product arrangement problem when consumers are either rational maximizers, use a satisficing procedure, or apply successive choice. The complexity results we report are shown to crucially depend on the size of the top cycle in consumers’ preferences over products and on the direction in which alternatives on the shelf are encountered.

Keywords

Bounded rationality Choice from lists Computational complexity Product arrangement Top cycle 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to two anonymous referees for their helpful comments and suggestions.

References

  1. Apesteguia, J., & Ballester, M. A. (2010). The computational complexity of rationalizing behavior. Journal of Mathematical Economics, 46(3), 356–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ausiello, G., Protasi, M., Marchetti-Spaccamela, A., Gambosi, G., Crescenzi, P., & Kann, V. (1999). Complexity and approximation: Combinatorial Optimization Problems and their approximability properties. Secaucus, NJ: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bernheim, B. D., & Rangel, A. (2009). Beyond revealed preference: Choice-theoretic foundations for behavioral welfare economics. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 124(1), 51–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cormen, T. H., Leiserson, C. E., Rivest, R. L., & Stein, C. (2009). Introduction to algorithms (3rd ed.). Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  5. Eliaz, K., & Spiegler, R. (2011). Consideration sets and competitive marketing. Review of Economic Studies, 78(1), 235–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Garey, M. R., & Johnson, D. S. (1979). Computers and intractability: A guide to the theory of NP-completeness. New York: W. H. Freeman.Google Scholar
  7. Gigerenzer, G., Todd, P. M., & Group AR. (1999). Simple heuristics that make us smart. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Leininger, W. (1993). The fatal vote: Berlin versus Bonn. FinanzArchiv, 50(1), 1–20.Google Scholar
  9. Manrai, A. K., & Sinha, P. (1989). Elimination-by-cutoffs. Marketing Science, 8(2), 133–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Masatlioglu, Y., & Ok, E. A. (2005). Rational choice with a status-quo bias. Journal of Economic Theory, 121(1), 1–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Opatrny, J. (1979). Total ordering problem. SIAM Journal on Computing, 8(1), 111–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Rubinstein, A., & Salant, Y. (2006). A model of choice from lists. Theoretical Economics, 1(1), 3–17.Google Scholar
  13. Salant, Y. (2003). Limited computational resources favor rationality. Discussion Paper.Google Scholar
  14. Salant, Y. (2011). Procedural analysis of choice rules with applications to bounded rationality. American Economic Review, 101(2), 724–748.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Salant, Y., & Rubinstein, A. (2008). (A, f): Choice with frames. Review of Economic Studies, 75(4), 1287–1296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Sharir, M. (1981). A strong-connectivity algorithm and its applications in data flow analysis. Computers & Mathematics with Applications, 7(1), 67–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Simon, H. A. (1955). A behavioral model of rational choice. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 69(1), 99–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Spiegler, R. (2014). Competitive framing. American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, 6(3), 35–58.Google Scholar
  19. Tarjan, R. (1972). Depth-first search and linear graph algorithms. SIAM Journal on Computing, 1(2), 146–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Tovey, C. A. (2002). Tutorial on computational complexity. Interfaces, 32(3), 30–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Valenzuela, A., & Raghubir, P. (2009). Position-biased beliefs: The center-stage efect. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 19(2), 185–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Valenzuela, A., Raghubir, P., & Mitakakis, C. (2013). Shelf space schemes: Myth or reality? Journal of Business Research, 66(7), 881–888.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Chair of Economic TheorySaarland UniversitySaarbrückenGermany

Personalised recommendations