Advertisement

Stochastic choice over menus

  • Pedram HeydariEmail author
Article
  • 12 Downloads

Abstract

Models of choice over menus aim at capturing the effect of some behavioral or non-standard element of decision-making on the behavior of a single decision-maker. These models are usually compared with the standard model of choice over menus, in which the decision-maker chooses a menu whose best item is better than that of all other available ones. However, in many empirical settings such as experimental studies, choice data come from a population of decision-makers with possibly heterogeneous attitudes and tastes. This heterogeneity can make the observed choices over menus stochastic. This fact calls for a stochastic characterization of models of choice over menus to be able to better compare and contrast different models empirically. In this paper, I do this task for the standard model, which would be an extension of the random utility model to the realm of choice over menus. In particular, I provide the necessary and sufficient conditions, i.e., axioms on (stochastic) choice data over menus for it to be consistent with a population of decision-makers each of whom behaves according to the standard model. The axioms that characterize the model are the axiom of revealed stochastic preferences over singletons and three rationality axioms.

Keywords

Stochastic choice Random utility Dynamic choice Menu 

Notes

Supplementary material

References

  1. Block, H. D., & Marschak, J. (1960). Random orderings and stochastic theories of responses. Contributions to Probability and Statistics, 2, 97–132.Google Scholar
  2. Chatterjee, K., & Krishna, R. V. (2009). A “dual self” representation for stochastic temptation. American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, 1(2), 148–67.Google Scholar
  3. Dekel, E., & Lipman, B. L. (2012). Costly self control and random self indulgence. Econometrica, 80(3), 1271–1302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Fudenberg, D., & Strzalecki, T. (2015). Dynamic logit with choice aversion. Econometrica, 83(2), 651–691.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Gul, F., & Pesendorfer, W. (2006). Random expected utility. Econometrica, 74(1), 121–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Gul, F., & Pesendorfer, W. (2001). Temptation and self control. Econometrica, 69(6), 1403–1435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Kopylov, I. (2012). Perfectionism and choice. Econometrica, 80(5), 1819–1843.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Kreps, D. M. (1979). A representation theorem for “preference for flexibility”. Econometrica, 47(3), 565–577.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. McFadden, D. (1978). Modeling the choice of residential location. Transportation Research Record, 673, 72–77.Google Scholar
  10. McFadden, D., & Richter, M.K. (1990). Stochastic rationality and revealed stochastic preference. Preferences, uncertainty, and optimality, essays in honor of Leo Hurwicz (pp. 161–186). Westview Press: Boulder, COGoogle Scholar
  11. Ortoleva, P. (2013). The price of flexibility: Towards a theory of thinking aversion. Journal of Economic Theory, 148(3), 903–934.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Stovall, J. E. (2010). Multiple temptations. Econometrica, 78(1), 349–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Strotz, R. H. (1955). Myopia and inconsistency in dynamic utility maximization. The Review of Economic Studies, 23(3), 165–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Geisinger ADMILewisburgUSA

Personalised recommendations