The conventional discrete-choice model of demand assumes that consumers are fully informed about every available product alternative. This assumption is at odds with the large body of literature studying incomplete information and the role of the consumer's “evoked set” or “consideration set.” The author develops a novel empirical discrete-choice demand model derived from an underlying theory of consumers' rational inattention. The model distinguishes between factors that shift demand through the utility function, such as prices and product attributes, and factors that shift demand through the consumer's information “evaluation costs.” The author conducts an empirical case study of the laundry detergent category. Using a set of exclusion restrictions based on retail promotional instruments, specification tests select the rational inattention model over the conventional full-information discrete-choice model. Exploiting the launch of Tide Pods midway through the sample, the author demonstrates the role of evaluation costs for the measured value creation from a new product. A conventional discrete-choice model always assigns positive incremental consumer value from new products. However, the rational inattention model developed herein finds a decrease in overall consumer welfare from the new Tide Pods’ entry, with the increased friction in information associated with the larger choice set offsetting the potential gains from higher match value.
AllenbyGreg M.GinterJames L. (1995), “The Effects of in-Store Displays and Feature Advertising on Consideration Sets,” International Journal of Research in Marketing, 12 (1), 67–80.
2.
AndersonSimon P.de PalmaAndréThisseJacques-François (1992), Discrete Choice Theory of Product Differentiation Cambridge. MIT Press.
3.
AndersonEric T.SimesterDuncan I. (1998), “The Role of Sale Signs,” Marketing Science, 17 (2), 139–55.
4.
AndrewsRick L.SrinivasanT.C. (1995), “Studying Consideration Effects in Empirical Choice Models Using Scanner Panel Data,” Journal of Marketing Research, 32 (1), 30–41.
5.
BerrySteven (1994), “Estimating Discrete-Choice Models of Product Differentiation,” RAND Journal of Economics, 25 (2), 242–62.
6.
BerryStevenPakesAriel (2007), “The Pure Characteristics Demand Model,” International Economic Review, 48 (4), 1193–1225.
7.
BertrandMarianneKarlanDeanMullainathanSendhilShafirEldarZinmanJonathan (2010), “What’s Advertising Content Worth? Evidence from a Consumer Credit Marketing Field Experiment,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, 125 (1), 263–306.
BhattacharyaVivekHowardGreg (2022), “Rational Inattention in the Infield,” American Economic Journal: Microeconomics (forthcoming), https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/mic.20200310&&from=f.
10.
BlattbergRobert C.NeslinScott A. (1989), “Sales Promotion: The Long and the Short of it,” Marketing Letters, 1 (1), 81–97.
11.
BroniarczykSusan M.HoyerWayne D.McAlisterLeigh (1998), “Consumers’ Perceptions of the Assortment Offered in a Grocery Category: The Impact of Item Reduction,” Journal of Marketing Research, 35 (2), 166–76.
12.
BronnenbergBart J.KimJun B.MelaCarl F. (2016), “Zooming In on Choice: How Do Consumers Search for Cameras Online?” Marketing Science, 35 (5), 693–712.
13.
BronnenbergBart J.VanhonackerWilfried R. (1996), “Limited Choice Sets, Local Price Response, and Implied Measures of Price Competition,” Journal of Marketing Research, 33 (2), 163–73.
14.
BrownZach Y.JeonJihye (2020), Endogenous Information and Simplifying Insurance Choice,” working paper.
15.
CaplinAndrewDeanMark (2015), “Revealed Preference, Rational Inattention, and Costly Information Acquisition,” American Economic Review, 105 (7), 2183–2203.
16.
CaplinAndrewDeanMarkLeahyJohn (2019), “Rational Inattention, Optimal Consideration Sets and Stochastic Choice,” Review of Economic Studies, 86 (3), 1061–94.
17.
ChernevAlexanderHamiltonRyan (2009), “Assortment Size and Option Attractiveness in Consumer Choice Among Retailers,” Journal of Marketing Research, 46 (3), 410–20.
18.
ChintaguntaPradeep K.DubéJean-PierreSinghVishal (2003), “Balancing Profitability and Customer Welfare in a Supermarket Chain,” Quantitative Marketing and Economics, 1 (1), 111–47.
CrawfordGregory S.ShumMatthew (2005), “Uncertainty and Learning in Pharmaceutical Demand,” Econometrica, 73 (4), 1137–73.
22.
DagsvikJohn K.KarlströmAnders (2005), “Compensating Variation and Hicksian Choice Probabilities in Random Utility Models That Are Nonlinear in Income,” Review of Economic Studies, 72 (1), 57–76.
23.
DalyAndrewZacharyStan (1978), “Improved Multiple Choice Models,” in Determinants of Travel Choice, David A. Hensher and M. Quasim Dalvi, eds. Saxon House, 321–62.
24.
DeDadMichaelLugovskyyVolodymyrMeloEmersonSkibaAlexandre (2021), “Information Processing and Quality Choice: The Case of Organic Milk,” working paper.
25.
ErdemTülinKeaneMichael P. (1996), “Decision-Making Under Uncertainty: Capturing Dynamic Brand Choice Process in Turbulent Consumer Goods Markets,” Marketing Science, 15 (1), 1–20.
26.
FaderPeter S.McAlisterLeigh (1990), “An Elimination by Aspects Model of Consumer Response to Promotion Calibrated on UPC Scanner Data,” Journal of Marketing Research, 27 (3), 322–32.
27.
FanYingYangChenyu (2020), “Competition, Product Proliferation, and Welfare: A Study of the US Smartphone Market,” American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, 12 (2), 99–134.
28.
FosgerauMogensMeloEmersonde PalmaAndréShumMatthew (2020), “Discrete Choice and Rational Inattention: A General Equivalence Result,” International Economic Review, 61 (4), 1569–89.
29.
GuadagniPeter M.LittleJohn D.C. (1983), “A Logit Model of Brand Choice Calibrated on Scanner Data,” Marketing Science, 2 (3), 203–38.
30.
HauserJohn R.WernerfeltBirger (1990), “An Evaluation Cost Model of Consideration Sets,” Journal of Consumer Research, 16 (4), 393–407.
31.
HerrigesJoseph A.KlingCatherine L. (1999), “Nonlinear Income Effects in Random Utility Models,” Review of Economics and Statistics, 81 (1), 62–72.
32.
HonkaElisabeth (2014), “Quantifying Search and Switching Costs in the US Auto Insurance Industry,” RAND Journal of Economics, 45 (4), 847–84.
33.
HowardJohn A.ShethJagdish N. (1969), The Theory of Buyer Behavior. John Wiley & Sons.
34.
IyengarSheena S.HubermanGurJiangWei (2004), “How Much Choice Is Too Much? Contributions to 401(k) Retirement Plans,” in Pension Design and Structure: New Lessons from Behavioral Finance, Olivia S. Mitchell and Stephen P. Utkus, eds. Oxford University Press, 83–96.
35.
IyengarSheena S.LepperMark (2000), “When Choice Is Demotivating: Can One Desire Too Much of a Good Thing?” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79 (6), 995–1006.
36.
JooJoonhwi (2018), “Essays in Consumer Choice and Consumer Demand,” doctoral thesis, Department of Economics, University of Chicago.
37.
KimJun B.AlbuquerquePauloBronnenbergBart J. (2010), “Online Demand Under Limited Consumer Search,” Marketing Science, 29 (6), 1001–23.
MatĕjkaFilipMcKayAlisdair (2015), “Rational Inattention to Discrete Choices: A New Foundation for the Multinomial Logit Model,” American Economic Review, 105 (1), 272–98.
42.
McFaddenDaniel (1974), “Conditional Logit Analysis of Qualitative Choice Behavior,” in Frontiers in Econometrics, ZarembkaPaul, ed. New York: Academic Press, 105–42.
43.
McFaddenDaniel (1978), “Modelling the Choice of Residential Location,” in Spatial Interaction Theory and Planning Models, Vol. 3, Anders Karlqvist, ed.North-Holland, 75–96.
44.
McFaddenDaniel (1981), “Econometric Models of Probabilistic Choice,” in Structural Analysis of Discrete Data with Econometric Applications, Charles F. Manski and Daniel L. McFadden, eds. MIT Press, 198–272.
45.
McFaddenDanielTrainKenneth (2019), “Welfare Economics in Product Markets,” working paper.
46.
MehtaNitinRajivSurendraSrinivasanKannan (2003), “Price Uncertainty and Consumer Search: A Structural Model of Consideration set Formulation,” Marketing Science, 22 (1), 58–84.
47.
MoorthySridharRatchfordBrian T.TalukdarDebabrata (1997), “Consumer Information Search Revisited: Theory and Empirical Analysis,” Journal of Consumer Research, 23 (4), 263–77.
48.
MorozovIlya (2021), “Measuring Benefits from New Products in Markets with Information Frictions,” working paper.
49.
NatanOlivia (2021), “Choice Frictions in Large Assortments,” working paper.
50.
NewmanJoseph W.StaelinRichard (1972), “Prepurchase Information Seeking for New Cars and Major Household Appliances,” Journal of Marketing Research, 9 (3), 249–57.
51.
NoretzAndriyTakahashiSatoru (2013), “On the Surjectivity of the Mapping Between Utilities and Choice Probabilities,” Quantitative Economics, 4 (1), 149–55.
52.
PetrinAmil (2002), “Quantifying the Benefits of New Products: The Case of the Minivan,” Journal of Political Economy, 110 (4), 705–29.
53.
PorcherCharly (2020), “Migration with Costly Information,” working paper.
54.
PunjGirish N.StaelinRichard (1983), “A Model of Consumer Information Search Behavior for New Automobiles,” Journal of Consumer Research, 9 (4), 366–80.
55.
RatchfordBrian T.TalukdarDebabrataLeeMyung-Soo (2007), “The Impact of the Internet on Consumers’ Use of Information Sources for Automobiles: A Re-Inquiry,” Journal of Consumer Research, 34 (1), 111–19.
56.
ShannonC.E. (1948), “A Mathematical Theory of Communication,” The Bell System Technical Journal, 27 (3), 379–423.
57.
SimsChristopher A. (2003), “Implications of Rational Inattention,” Journal of Monetary Economics, 50 (3), 665–90.
58.
SmallKenneth A.RosenHarvey S. (1981), “Applied Welfare Economics with Discrete Choice Models,” Econometrica, 49 (1), 105–30.
59.
TeruiNobuhikoBanMasatakaAllenbyGreg M. (2011), “The Effect of Media Advertising on Brand Consideration and Choice,” Marketing Science, 30 (1), 74–91.
60.
TrainKenneth (2015), “Welfare Calculations in Discrete Choice Models When Anticipated and Experienced Attributes Differ: A Guide with Examples,” Journal of Choice Modeling, 16, 15–22.
61.
WilliamsH. (1977), “On the Formation of Travel Demand Models and Economic Evaluation Measures of User Benefit,” Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 9 (3), 285–344.
62.
WrightPeterBarbourFredrick (1977), “Phased Decision Strategies: Sequels to an Initial Screening,” working paper.
63.
ZhangJie (2006), “An Integrated Choice Model Incorporating Alternative Mechanisms for Consumers’ Reactions to In-Store Display and Feature Advertising,” Marketing Science, 25 (3), 278–90.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
