Consumer Choice Under Limited Attention When Alternatives Have Different Information Costs

References

• Ackerberg DA (2003) Advertising, learning, and consumer choice in experience good markets: An empirical examination. Internat. Econom. Rev. 44(3):1007–1040.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Alptekinoğlu A, Semple JH (2015) The exponomial choice model: A new alternative for assortment and price optimization. Oper. Res. 64(1):79–93.Link, Google Scholar
• Anderson SP, de Palma A, Thisse JF (1992) Discrete Choice Theory of Product Differentiation (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Blanchet JH, Gallego G, Goyal V (2016) A Markov chain approximation to choice modeling. Oper. Res. 64(4):886–905.Link, Google Scholar
• Boyacı T, Akçay Y (2018) Pricing when customers have limited attention. Management Sci. 64(7):2995–3014.Link, Google Scholar
• Branco F, Sun M, Villas-Boas JM (2012) Optimal search for product information. Management Sci. 58(11):2037–2056.Link, Google Scholar
• Caplin A, Dean M (2013) The behavioral implications of rational inattention with Shannon entropy. NBER Working Paper No. w19318, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Caplin A, Dean M (2015) Revealed preference, rational inattention, and costly information acquisition. Amer. Econom. Rev. 105(7):2183–2203.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Caplin A, Dean M, Leahy J (2017) Rationally inattentive behavior: Characterizing and generalizing shannon entropy. NBER Working Paper No. w23652, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
• Caplin A, Dean M, Leahy J (2019) Rational inattention, optimal consideration sets and stochastic choice. Rev. Econom. Stud. Forthcoming.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Caplin A, Leahy J, Matějka F (2016) Rational inattention and inference from market share data. Working paper, New York University, New York.Google Scholar
• Ching AT, Erdem T, Keane MP (2014) A simple method to estimate the roles of learning, inventories and category consideration in consumer choice. J. Choice Model. 13(December):60–72.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cover T (1984) An algorithm for maximizing expected log investment return. IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory 30(2):369–373.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cover TM, Thomas JA (2006) Elements of Information Theory, 2nd ed. (Wiley, New York).Google Scholar
• Davis AM, Katok E, Kwasnica AM (2014) Should sellers prefer auctions? A laboratory comparison of auctions and sequential mechanisms. Management Sci. 60(4):990–1008.Link, Google Scholar
• De los Santos B, Hortaçsu A, Wildenbeest M (2012) Testing models of consumer search using data on web browsing and purchasing behavior. Amer. Econom. Rev. 102(6):2955–2980.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dong L, Kouvelis P, Tian Z (2009) Dynamic pricing and inventory control of substitute products. Manufacturing Service Oper. Management 11(2):317–339.Link, Google Scholar
• Erdem T, Keane MP (1996) Decision-making under uncertainty: Capturing dynamic brand choice processes in turbulent consumer goods markets. Marketing Sci. 15(1):1–20.Link, Google Scholar
• Gabaix X (2014) A sparsity-based model of bounded rationality. Quart. J. Econom. 129(4):1661–1710.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hamilton RW, Thompson DV (2007) Is there a substitute for direct experience? Comparing consumers’ preferences after direct and indirect product experiences. J. Consumer Res. 34(4):546–555.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hanson W, Martin K (1996) Optimizing multinomial logit profit functions. Management Sci. 42(7):992–1003.Link, Google Scholar
• Hoch SJ, Ha YW (1986) Consumer learning: Advertising and the ambiguity of product experience. J. Consumer Res. 13(2):221–233.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ke TT, Shen ZJM, Villas-Boas JM (2016) Search for information on multiple products. Management Sci. 62(12):3576–3603.Link, Google Scholar
• Luce R (1959) Individual Choice Behavior: A Theoretical Analysis (Wiley, New York).Google Scholar
• Luce RD, Suppes P (1965) Preference, utility, and subjective probability. Luce RD, Bush RR, Galanter E, eds. Handbook of Mathematical Psychology, vol. 3 (Wiley, New York), 250–410.Google Scholar
• Maćkowiak B, Wiederholt M (2009) Optimal sticky prices under rational inattention. Amer. Econom. Rev. 99(3):769–803.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Maćkowiak B, Wiederholt M (2015) Business cycle dynamics under rational inattention. Rev. Econom. Stud. 82(4):1502–1532.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Manzini P, Mariotti M (2014) Stochastic choice and consideration sets. Econometrica 82(3):1153–1176.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Matějka F (2015) Rigid pricing and rationally inattentive consumer. J. Econom. Theory 158(B):656–678.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Matějka F, McKay A (2012) Simple market equilibria with rationally inattentive consumers. Amer. Econom. Rev. 102(3):24–29.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Matějka F, McKay A (2015) Rational inattention to discrete choices: A new foundation for the multinomial logit model. Amer. Econom. Rev. 105(1):272–298.Crossref, Google Scholar
• McFadden D (1974) Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. Zarembka P, ed. Frontiers in Economics (Academic Press, New York), 105–142.Google Scholar
• McKelvey RD, Palfrey TR (1995) Quantal response equilibria for normal form games. Games Econom. Behav. 10(1):6–38.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Narayanan S, Manchanda P, Chintagunta PK (2005) Temporal differences in the role of marketing communication in new product categories. J. Marketing Res. 42(3):278–290.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Oliveira H, Denti T, Mihm M, Ozbek K (2017) Rationally inattentive preferences and hidden information costs. Theoret. Econom. 12(2):621–654.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Reis R (2006) Inattentive producers. Rev. Econom. Stud. 73(3):793–821.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Roberts J, Lattin JM (1991) Development and testing of a model of consideration set composition. J. Marketing Res. 28(4):429–440.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Shannon CE (1948) A mathematical theory of communication. Bell System Tech. J. 27(3):379–423.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Simon HA (1955) A behavioral model of rational choice. Quart. J. Econom. 69(1):99–118.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Simon HA (1979) Information processing models of cognition. Annual Rev. Psych. 30(1):363–396.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sims CA (1998) Stickiness. Carnegie-Rochester Conf. Ser. Public Policy 49(1):317–356.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sims CA (2003) Implications of rational inattention. J. Monetary Econom. 50(3):665–690.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sims CA (2006) Rational inattention: Beyond the linear-quadratic case. Amer. Econom. Rev. 96(2):158–163.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Srikanth J, Rusmevichientong P (2017) A nonparametric joint assortment and price choice model. Management Sci. 63(9):3128–3145.Link, Google Scholar
• Stigler GJ (1961) The economics of information. J. Political Econom. 69(3):213–225.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Stoneman P (1981) Intra-firm diffusion, Bayesian learning and profitability. Econom. J. 91(362):375–388.Google Scholar
• Talluri K, van Ryzin G (2004) Revenue management under a general discrete choice model of consumer behavior. Management Sci. 50(1):15–33.Link, Google Scholar
• Todd PM, Gigerenzer G (2000) Précis of simple heuristics that make us smart. Behav. Brain Sci. 23(5):727–741.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tutino A (2013) Rationally inattentive consumption choices. Rev. Econom. Dynam. 16(3):421–439.Crossref, Google Scholar
• van Ryzin G, Mahajan S (1999) On the relationship between inventory costs and variety benefits in retailassortments. Management Sci. 45(11):1496–1509.Link, Google Scholar
• Verrecchia RE (1982) Information acquisition in a noisy rational expectations economy. Econometrica 50(6):1415–1430.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Weitzman ML (1979) Optimal search for the best alternative. Econometrica 47(3):641–654.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wierenga B (2008) Handbook of Marketing Decision Models (Springer, New York).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Zhang D, Adelman D (2009) An approximate dynamic programming approach to network revenue management with customer choice. Transportation Sci. 43(3):381–394.Link, Google Scholar