摘要翻译：
我们研究当选择困难时的种群行为，因为考虑替代方案成本很高。为了简化他们的选择问题，个人可能只关注可用选择的一个子集。我们设计并实现了一个新的在线实验，该实验对大样本个体进行了不同的选择集和考虑成本。我们提供了一个理论和统计框架，允许我们在总体水平上测试随机考虑。在这个框架内，我们比较了随机考虑的竞争模型。我们发现标准随机效用模型不能解释人口行为。然而，我们的结果表明，具有logit注意和异质偏好的随机考虑模型可以很好地解释种群行为。最后，我们发现，对于不同的代价，被试使用的随机代价规则是不同的，而偏好则不是。我们观察到，对价成本越高，从完全对价基准出发的行为越远，这支持了艰难选择通过有限对价对福利产生实质性负面影响的假设。
---
英文标题：
《Does Random Consideration Explain Behavior when Choice is Hard? Evidence
  from a Large-scale Experiment》
---
作者：
Victor H. Aguiar, Maria Jose Boccardi, Nail Kashaev, Jeongbin Kim
---
最新提交年份：
2019
---
分类信息：

一级分类：Economics        经济学
二级分类：General Economics        一般经济学
分类描述：General methodological, applied, and empirical contributions to economics.
对经济学的一般方法、应用和经验贡献。
--
一级分类：Quantitative Finance        数量金融学
二级分类：Economics        经济学
分类描述：q-fin.EC is an alias for econ.GN. Economics, including micro and macro economics, international economics, theory of the firm, labor economics, and other economic topics outside finance
q-fin.ec是econ.gn的别名。经济学，包括微观和宏观经济学、国际经济学、企业理论、劳动经济学和其他金融以外的经济专题
--

---
英文摘要：
  We study population behavior when choice is hard because considering alternatives is costly. To simplify their choice problem, individuals may pay attention to only a subset of available alternatives. We design and implement a novel online experiment that exogenously varies choice sets and consideration costs for a large sample of individuals. We provide a theoretical and statistical framework that allows us to test random consideration at the population level. Within this framework, we compare competing models of random consideration. We find that the standard random utility model fails to explain the population behavior. However, our results suggest that a model of random consideration with logit attention and heterogeneous preferences provides a good explanation for the population behavior. Finally, we find that the random consideration rule that subjects use is different for different consideration costs while preferences are not. We observe that the higher the consideration cost the further behavior is from the full-consideration benchmark, which supports the hypothesis that hard choices have a substantial negative impact on welfare via limited consideration.
---
PDF链接：
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1812.09619