Risk Preference Types, Limited Consideration, and Welfare

References

• Abaluck, J., and Adams, A. (2020), “What Do Consumers Consider before They Choose? Identification from Asymmetric Demand Responses,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, forthcoming.
   Google Scholar
• Apesteguia, J., and Ballester, M. A. (2018), “Monotone Stochastic Choice Models: The Case of Risk and Time Preferences,” Journal of Political Economy, 126, 74–106. DOI: 10.1086/695504.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Apesteguia, J., Ballester, M. A., and Lu, J. (2017), “Single-Crossing Random Utility Models,” Econometrica, 85, 661–674. DOI: 10.3982/ECTA14230.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Athey, S. (2001), “Single Crossing Properties and the Existence of Pure Strategy Equilibria in Games of Incomplete Information,” Econometrica, 69, 861–889. DOI: 10.1111/1468-0262.00223.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barseghyan, L., Coughlin, M., Molinari, F., and Teitelbaum, J. C. (2021a), “Heterogeneous Choice Sets and Preferences,” Econometrica, 89, 2015–2048. DOI: 10.3982/ECTA17448.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barseghyan, L., and Molinari, F. (2023), “Identification and Inference for Pure Random Coefficients Models with Limited Consideration,” Technical Report. mimeo.
   Google Scholar
• Barseghyan, L., Molinari, F., O’Donoghue, T., and Teitelbaum, J. C. (2013), “The Nature of Risk Preferences: Evidence from Insurance Choices,” American Economic Review, 103, 2499–2529. DOI: 10.1257/aer.103.6.2499.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• ——- (2018), “Estimating Risk Preferences in the Field,” Journal of Economic Literature, 56, 501–564.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barseghyan, L., Molinari, F., and Teitelbaum, J. C. (2016), “Inference Under Stability of Risk Preferences,” Quantitative Economics, 7, 367–409. DOI: 10.3982/QE511.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barseghyan, L., Molinari, F., and Thirkettle, M. (2019), “Discrete Choice Under Risk With Limited Consideration,” CEMMAP Working Paper, CWP08/19. Available at http://dx.medra.org/10.1920/wp.cem.2019.0819
   Google Scholar
• ——- (2021b), “Discrete Choice under Risk with Limited Consideration,” American Economic Review, 111, 1972–2006.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barseghyan, L., Prince, J., and Teitelbaum, J. C. (2011), “Are Risk Preferences Stable Across Contexts? Evidence from Insurance Data,” American Economic Review, 101, 591–631. DOI: 10.1257/aer.101.2.591.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barseghyan, L., Teitelbaum, J. C., and Xu, L. (2018), “Different Contexts, Different Risk Preferences?” SSRN Working Paper No. 3200657.
   Google Scholar
• Bhargava, S., Loewenstein, G., and Sydnor, J. (2017), “Choose to Lose: Health Plan Choices from a Menu with Dominated Options,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, 132, 1319–1372. DOI: 10.1093/qje/qjx011.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bruhin, A., Fehr-Duda, H., and Epper, T. (2010), “Risk and Rationality: Uncovering Heterogeneity in Probability Distortion,” Econometrica, 78, 1375–1412.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Caplin, A., and Dean, M. (2015), “Revealed Preference, Rational Inattention, and Costly Information Acquisition,” American Economic Review, 105, 2183–2203. DOI: 10.1257/aer.20140117.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cattaneo, M. D., Cheung, P., Ma, X., and Masatlioglu, Y. (2021), “Attention Overload,” Technical Report. Available at https://arxiv.org/abs/2110.10650.
   Google Scholar
• Cattaneo, M. D., Ma, X., Masatlioglu, Y., and Suleymanov, E. (2020), “A Random Attention Model,” Journal of Political Economy, 128, 2796–2836. DOI: 10.1086/706861.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen, Q., and Fang, Z. (2019), “Improved Inference on the Rank of a Matrix,” Quantitative Economics, 10, 1787–1824. DOI: 10.3982/QE1139.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chiappori, P.-A., Salanié, B., Salanié, F., and Gandhi, A. (2019), “From Aggregate Betting Data to Individual Risk Preferences,” Econometrica, 87, 1–36. DOI: 10.3982/ECTA11165.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Choi, S., Fisman, R., Gale, D., and Kariv, S. (2007), “Consistency and Heterogeneity of Individual Behavior under Uncertainty,” American Economic Review, 97, 1921–1938. DOI: 10.1257/aer.97.5.1921.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cohen, A., and Einav, L. (2007), “Estimating Risk Preferences from Deductible Choice,” American Economic Review, 97, 745–788. DOI: 10.1257/aer.97.3.745.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Conlon, C. T., and Mortimer, J. H. (2013), “Demand Estimation under Incomplete Product Availability,” American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, 5, 1–30. DOI: 10.1257/mic.5.4.1.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Conte, A., Hey, J. D., and Moffatt, P. G. (2011), “Mixture Models of Choice under Risk,” Journal of Econometrics, 162, 79–88. DOI: 10.1016/j.jeconom.2009.10.011.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Crawford, G. S., Griffith, R., and Iaria, A. (2021), “A Survey of Preference Estimation with Unobserved Choice Set Heterogeneity,” Journal of Econometrics, 222, 4–43. DOI: 10.1016/j.jeconom.2020.07.024.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De los Santos, B., Hortaçsu, A., and Wildenbeest, M. R. (2012), “Testing Models of Consumer Search using Data on Web Browsing and Purchasing Behavior,” American Economic Review, 102, 2955–2980. DOI: 10.1257/aer.102.6.2955.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Einav, L., Finkelstein, A., Pascu, I., and Cullen, M. R. (2012), “How General are Risk Preferences? Choice under Uncertainty in Different Domains,” American Economic Review, 102, 2606–2638. DOI: 10.1257/aer.102.6.2606.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gaynor, M., Propper, C., and Seiler, S. (2016), “Free to Choose? Reform, Choice, and Consideration Sets in the English National Health Service,” American Economic Review, 106, 3521–57. DOI: 10.1257/aer.20121532.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ghosal, S. (2001), “Convergence Rates for Density Estimation with Bernstein Polynomials,” Annals of Statistics, 29, 1264–1280.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goeree, M. S. (2008), “Limited Information and Advertising in the U.S. Personal Computer Industry,” Econometrica, 76, 1017–1074.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gualdani, C., and Sinha, S. (2023), “Identification in Discrete Choice Models with Imperfect Information,” Technical Report. Available at https://arxiv.org/abs/1911.04529.
   Google Scholar
• Gul, F. (1991), “A Theory of Disappointment Aversion,” Econometrica, 59, 667–686. DOI: 10.2307/2938223.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Handel, B. R. (2013), “Adverse Selection and Inertia in Health Insurance Markets: When Nudging Hurts,” American Economic Review, 103, 2643–2682. DOI: 10.1257/aer.103.7.2643.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harrison, G. W., Humphrey, S. J., and Verschoor, A. (2010), “Choice under Uncertainty: Evidence from Ethiopia, India and Uganda,” The Economic Journal, 120, 80–104. DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-0297.2009.02303.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heiss, F., McFadden, D., Winter, J., Wuppermann, A., and Zhou, B. (2021), “Inattention and Switching Costs as Sources of Inertia in Medicare Part D,” American Economic Review, 111, 2737–2781. DOI: 10.1257/aer.20170471.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Honka, E., and Chintagunta, P. (2017), “Simultaneous or Sequential? Search Strategies in the U.S. Auto Insurance Industry,” Marketing Science, 36, 21–42. DOI: 10.1287/mksc.2016.0995.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Honka, E., Hortaçsu, A., and Vitorino, M. A. (2017), “Advertising, Consumer Awareness, and Choice: Evidence from the U.S. Banking Industry,” RAND Journal of Economics, 48, 611–646. DOI: 10.1111/1756-2171.12188.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kahneman, D. (2003), “Maps of Bounded Rationality: Psychology for Behavioral Economics,” American Economic Review, 93, 1449–1475. DOI: 10.1257/000282803322655392.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kahneman, D., and Tversky, A. (1979), “Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk,” Econometrica, 47, 263–291. DOI: 10.2307/1914185.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kőszegi, B., and Rabin, M. (2006), “A Model of Reference-Dependent Preferences,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, 121, 1133–1166. DOI: 10.1162/qjec.121.4.1133.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• ——- (2007), “Reference-Dependent Risk Attitudes,” American Economic Review, 97, 1047–1073.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lleras, J. S., Masatlioglu, Y., Nakajima, D., and Ozbay, E. Y. (2017), “When More is Less: Limited Consideration,” Journal of Economic Theory, 170, 70–85. DOI: 10.1016/j.jet.2017.04.004.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lu, Z. (2022), “Estimating Multinomial Choice Models with Unobserved Choice Sets,” Journal of Econometrics, 226, 368–398. DOI: 10.1016/j.jeconom.2021.06.004.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Manski, C. F. (1977), “The Structure of Random Utility Models,” Theory and Decision, 8, 229–254. DOI: 10.1007/BF00133443.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Manzini, P., and Mariotti, M. (2014), “Stochastic Choice and Consideration Sets,” Econometrica, 82, 1153–1176.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mas-Colell, A., Whinston, M. D., and Green, J. R. (1995), Microeconomic Theory, New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Masatlioglu, Y., Nakajima, D., and Ozbay, E. Y. (2012), “Revealed Attention,” American Economic Review, 102, 2183–2205. DOI: 10.1257/aer.102.5.2183.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McFadden, D. L. (1974), “Conditional Logit Analysis of Qualitative Choice Behavior,” in Frontiers in Econometrics, eds. P. Zarembka, pp. 105–142, New York: Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Mirrlees, J. A. (1971), “An Exploration in the Theory of Optimum Income Taxation,” The Review of Economic Studies, 38, 175–208. DOI: 10.2307/2296779.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Prelec, D. (1998), “The Probability Weighting Function,” Econometrica, 66, 497–527. DOI: 10.2307/2998573.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Quiggin, J. (1982), “A Theory of Anticipated Utility,” Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 3, 323–343. DOI: 10.1016/0167-2681(82)90008-7.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rabin, M., and Weizsacker, G. (2009), “Narrow Bracketing and Dominated Choices,” American Economic Review, 99, 1508–43. DOI: 10.1257/aer.99.4.1508.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Read, D., Loewenstein, G., and Rabin, M. (1999), “Choice Bracketing,” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 19, 171–197. DOI: 10.1023/A:1007879411489.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spence, A. M. (1974), “Market Signaling: Informational Transfer in Hiring and Related Screening Processes,” p. 143, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. DOI: 10.2307/2521860.
   Google Scholar
• Starmer, C. (2000), “Developments in Non-Expected Utility Theory: The Hunt for a Descriptive Theory of Choice under Risk,” Journal of Economic Literature, 38, 332–382. DOI: 10.1257/jel.38.2.332.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sydnor, J. (2010), “(Over)Insuring Modest Risks,” American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 2, 177–199. DOI: 10.1257/app.2.4.177.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tversky, A., and Kahneman, D. (1992), “Advances in Prospect Theory: Cumulative Representation of Uncertainty,” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 5, 297–323. DOI: 10.1007/BF00122574.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Nierop, E., Bronnenberg, B., Paap, R., Wedel, M., and Franses, P. H. (2010), “Retrieving Unobserved Consideration Sets from Household Panel Data,” Journal of Marketing Research, 47, 63–74. DOI: 10.1509/jmkr.47.1.63.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wilcox, N. T. (2008), Stochastic Models for Binary Discrete Choice Under Risk: A Critical Primer and Econometric Comparison, pp. 197–292, Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
   Google Scholar
• Yaari, M. E. (1987), “The Dual Theory of Choice under Risk,” Econometrica, 55, 95–115. DOI: 10.2307/1911158.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar