The axiomatic foundation of logit

Breitmoser, Yves (2016): The axiomatic foundation of logit.

Abstract

Multinomial logit is the canonical model of discrete choice but widely criticized for requiring specific functional assumptions as foundation. The present paper shows that logit is behaviorally founded without such assumptions. Logit's functional form obtains if relative choice probabilities are independent of irrelevant alternatives and invariant to utility translation (narrow bracketing), to relabeling options (presentation independence), and to changing utilities of third options (context independence). Least squares differs from logit only by making the additional assumption that utility is perceived to be quadratic around the utility maximizer, showing that logit is the more general model and least squares actually requires specific functional assumptions. Reviewing behavioral evidence, presentation and context independence seem to be violated in typical experiments, not IIA. Relaxing context independence yields contextual logit (Wilcox, 2011), relaxing presentation independence allows to capture "focality" of options.

• Item Type: MPRA Paper
• Language: English
• Keywords: stochastic choice, logit, axiomatic foundation, behavioral evidence, utility estimation, least squares
• Subjects: C - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods > C1 - Econometric and Statistical Methods and Methodology: General > C13 - Estimation: General; D - Microeconomics > D0 - General > D03 - Behavioral Microeconomics: Underlying Principles

References

Adams, E. and Messick, S. (1958). An axiomatic formulation and generalization of successive intervals scaling. Psychometrika, 23(4):355–368.

Andersen, S., Harrison, G., Lau, M., and Rutström, E. (2008). Eliciting risk and time preferences. Econometrica, 76(3):583–618.

Anderson, S. and de Palma, A. (1992). Multiple product firms: a nested logit approach. The Journal of Industrial Economics, 40(92):261–276.

Andreoni, J. and Miller, J. (2002). Giving according to GARP: An experimental test of the consistency of preferences for altruism. Econometrica, 70(2):737–753.

Andreoni, J. and Sprenger, C. (2012). Estimating time preferences from convex budgets. American Economic Review, 102(7):3333–3356.

Bajari, P. and Hortacsu, A. (2005). Are structural estimates of auction models reasonable? evidence from experimental data. Journal of Political Economy, 113(4):703–741.

Barberà, S. and Pattanaik, P. K. (1986). Falmagne and the rationalizability of stochastic choices in terms of random orderings. Econometrica, 54(3):707–15.

Bardsley, N. and Moffatt, P. (2007). The experimetrics of public goods: Inferring motivations from contributions. Theory and Decision, 62(2):161–193.

Battalio, R., Samuelson, L., and Huyck, J. (2001). Optimization incentives and coordination failure in laboratory stag hunt games. Econometrica, 69(3):749–764.

Bellemare, C., Kröger, S., and Van Soest, A. (2008). Measuring inequity aversion in a heterogeneous population using experimental decisions and subjective probabilities. Econometrica, 76(4):815–839.

Bellemare, C., Sebald, A., and Strobel, M. (2011). Measuring the willingness to pay to avoid guilt: estimation using equilibrium and stated belief models. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 26(3):437–453.

Berry, S., Levinsohn, J., and Pakes, A. (1995). Automobile prices in market equilibrium. Econometrica, 63(4):841–890.

Birnbaum, M. H. and Navarrete, J. B. (1998). Testing descriptive utility theories: Violations of stochastic dominance and cumulative independence. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 17(1):49–79.

Block, H. D. and Marschak, J. (1960). Random orderings and stochastic theories of responses. Contributions to probability and statistics, 2:97–132.

Bordalo, P., Gennaioli, N., and Shleifer, A. (2012). Salience theory of choice under risk. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 127(3):1243–1285.

Breitmoser, Y. (2016). Stochastic choice, systematic mistakes and preference estimation. MPRA Paper 72779.

Buschena, D. and Zilberman, D. (2000). Generalized expected utility, heteroscedastic error, and path dependence in risky choice. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 20(1):67–88.

Camerer, C. (1989). An experimental test of several generalized utility theories. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 2(1):61–104.

Camerer, C. and Ho, T. H. (1999). Experience-weighted attraction learning in normal form games. Econometrica, 67(4):827–874.

Camerer, C. F. and Ho, T.-H. (2015). Behavioral game theory experiments and modeling. In Young, H. P. and Zamir, S., editors, Handbook of Game Theory with Economic Applications, volume 4, pages 517–573. Elsevier.

Campo, S., Guerre, E., Perrigne, I., and Vuong, Q. (2011). Semiparametric estimation of first-price auctions with risk-averse bidders. Review of Economic Studies, 78(1):112–147.

Caplin, A. and Dean, M. (2015). Revealed preference, rational inattention, and costly information acquisition. American Economic Review, 105(7):2183–2203.

Cappelen, A., Hole, A., Sørensen, E., and Tungodden, B. (2007). The pluralism of fairness ideals: An experimental approach. American Economic Review, 97(3):818–827.

Cerreia-Vioglio, S., Dillenberger, D., and Ortoleva, P. (2015). Cautious expected utility and the certainty effect. Econometrica, 83(2):693–728.

Choi, S., Fisman, R., Gale, D., and Kariv, S. (2007). Consistency and heterogeneity of individual behavior under uncertainty. American Economic Review, 97(5):1921–1938.

Cohen, J. L. and Dickens, W. T. (2002). A foundation for behavioral economics. American Economic Review, 92(2):335–338.

Cooper, D. J. and Dutcher, E. G. (2011). The dynamics of responder behavior in ultimatum games: a meta-study. Experimental Economics, 14(4):519–546.

Costa-Gomes, M., Crawford, V., and Broseta, B. (2001). Cognition and behavior in normal-form games: An experimental study. Econometrica, 69(5):1193–1235.

Dagsvik, J. K. (2008). Axiomatization of stochastic models for choice under uncertainty. Mathematical Social Sciences, 55(3):341–370.

Dagsvik, J. K. (2015). Stochastic models for risky choices: A comparison of different axiomatizations. Journal of Mathematical Economics, 60:81–88.

Davis, D. and Holt, C. (1993). Experimental Economics. Princeton University Press.

Dean, M. L. (1980). Presentation order effects in product taste tests. The Journal of psychology, 105(1):107–110.

Debreu, G. (1960). Review of ’Individual Choice Behavior’ by R. Luce. American Economic Review, 50:186–8.

Dinner, I., Johnson, E. J., Goldstein, D. G., and Liu, K. (2011). Partitioning default effects: why people choose not to choose. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 17(4):332.

Engel, C. (2011). Dictator games: a meta study. Experimental Economics, 14:583–610.

Falmagne, J.-C. (1978). A representation theorem for finite random scale systems. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 18(1):52–72.

Feenberg, D. R., Ganguli, I., Gaule, P., Gruber, J., et al. (2015). It’s good to be first: Order bias in reading and citing nber working papers. Technical report, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.

Fisman, R., Kariv, S., and Markovits, D. (2007). Individual preferences for giving. American Economic Review, 97(5):1858–1876.

Fudenberg, D., Iijima, R., and Strzalecki, T. (2015). Stochastic choice and revealed perturbed utility. Econometrica, 83(6):2371–2409.

Fudenberg, D. and Strzalecki, T. (2015). Dynamic logit with choice aversion. Econometrica, 83(2):651–691.

Gächter, S., Herrmann, B., and Thöni, C. (2004). Trust, voluntary cooperation, and socio-economic background: survey and experimental evidence. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 55(4):505–531.

Goeree, J. K., Holt, C. A., and Laury, S. K. (2002). Private costs and public benefits: Unraveling the effects of altruism and noisy behavior. Journal of Public Economics, 83(2):255–276.

Goeree, J. K., Holt, C. A., and Palfrey, T. R. (2003). Risk averse behavior in generalized matching pennies games. Games and Economic Behavior, 45(1):97–113.

Gul, F., Natenzon, P., and Pesendorfer, W. (2014). Random choice as behavioral optimization. Econometrica, 82(5):1873–1912.

Harless, D. and Camerer, C. (1995). An error rate analysis of experimental data testing nash refinements. European Economic Review, 39(3):649–660.

Harrison, G. W. and Johnson, L. T. (2006). Identifying altruism in the laboratory. In Isaac, R. M. and Davis, D. D., editors, Experiments Investigating Fundraising and Charitable Contributors, volume 11 of Research in experimental economics, pages 177–223. Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

Harrison, G. W. and Rutström, E. E. (2008). Risk aversion in the laboratory. In Cox, J. C. and Harrison, G. W., editors, Risk aversion in experiments, volume 12 of Research in experimental economics, pages 41–196. Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

Heckman, J. J. (2010). Building bridges between structural and program evaluation approaches to evaluating policy. Journal of Economic literature, 48(2):356–398.

Heitjan, D. F. and Rubin, D. B. (1991). Ignorability and coarse data. Annals of Statistics, pages 2244–2253.

Hey, J. (1995). Experimental investigations of errors in decision making under risk. European Economic Review, 39(3):633–640.

Hey, J. (2005). Why we should not be silent about noise. Experimental Economics, 8(4):325–345.

Holt, C. A. and Laury, S. K. (2002). Risk aversion and incentive effects. American Economic Review, 92(5):1644–1655.

Jakiela, P. (2013). Equity vs. efficiency vs. self-interest: on the use of dictator games to measure distributional preferences. Experimental Economics, 16(2):208–221.

Johnson, N. D. and Mislin, A. A. (2011). Trust games: A meta-analysis. Journal of Economic Psychology, 32(5):865–889.

Keane, M. (2010a). A structural perspective on the experimentalist school. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 24(2):47–58.

Keane, M. P. (2010b). Structural vs. atheoretic approaches to econometrics. Journal of Econometrics, 156(1):3–20.

Koszegi, B. and Szeidl, A. (2013). A model of focusing in economic choice. The Quarterly journal of economics, 128(1):53–104.

Lacetera, N., Pope, D. G., and Sydnor, J. R. (2012). Heuristic thinking and limited attention in the car market. American Economic Review, 102(5):2206–2236.

Luce, R. (1959). Individual choice behavior: A theoretical analysis. Wiley New York.

Luce, R. D. and Suppes, P. (1965). Preference, utility, and subjective probability. In Luce, R. D., Bush, R. R., and Galanter, E., editors, Handbook of Mathematical Psychology, Vol. III, pages 252–410. Wiley, New York.

Manski, C. F. and Molinari, F. (2010). Rounding probabilistic expectations in surveys. Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, 28(2):219–231.

Manzini, P. and Mariotti, M. (2014). Stochastic choice and consideration sets. Econometrica, 82(3):1153–1176.

Masatlioglu, Y., Nakajima, D., and Ozbay, E. Y. (2012). Revealed attention. American Economic Review, 102(5):2183–2205.

Matejka, F. and McKay, A. (2015). Rational inattention to discrete choices: A new foundation for the multinomial logit model. American Economic Review, 105(1):272–98.

McFadden, D. (1974). Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice models. Frontiers of Econometrics, ed. P. Zarembka. New York: Academic Press, pages 105–142.

McFadden, D. (1976). Quantal choice analysis: A survey. Annals of Economic and Social Measurement, 5(4):363–390.

McFadden, D. (1980). Econometric models for probabilistic choice among products. The Journal of Business, 53(3):13–29.

McFadden, D. (2001). Economic choices. American Economic Review, 91(3):351–378.

McKelvey, R. D. and Palfrey, T. R. (1995). Quantal response equilibria for normal form games. Games and Economic Behavior, 10(1):6–38.

McKelvey, R. D. and Palfrey, T. R. (1998). Quantal response equilibria for extensive form games. Experimental Economics, 1(1):9–41.

McKenzie, C. R., Liersch, M. J., and Finkelstein, S. R. (2006). Recommendations implicit in policy defaults. Psychological Science, 17(5):414–420.

Miller, J. M. and Krosnick, J. A. (1998). The impact of candidate name order on election outcomes. Public Opinion Quarterly, 62:291–330.

Nevo, A. (2000). A practitioner’s guide to estimation of random-coefficients logit models of demand. Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, 9(4):513–548.

Oosterbeek, H., Sloof, R., and Van De Kuilen, G. (2004). Cultural differences in ultimatum game experiments: Evidence from a meta-analysis. Experimental Economics, 7(2):171–188.

Padoa-Schioppa, C. and Rustichini, A. (2014). Rational attention and adaptive coding: a puzzle and a solution. American Economic Review, 104(5):507.

Papi, M. (2012). Satisficing choice procedures. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 84(1):451–462.

Poltrock, S. E. and Schwartz, D. R. (1984). Comparative judgments of multidigit numbers. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 10(1):32.

Read, D., Loewenstein, G., and Rabin, M. (1999). Choice bracketing. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 19(1-3):171–97.

Rényi, A. (1960). On measures of information and entropy. In Proceedings of the 4th Berkeley Symposium on Mathematics, Statistics and Probability, pages 547–561.

Robertson, C. and Strauss, D. (1981). A characterization theorem for random utility variables. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 23(2):184–189.

Rust, J. (2010). Comments on: "structural vs. atheoretic approaches to econometrics" by Michael Keane. Journal of Econometrics, 156(1):21–24.

Rust, J. (2014). The limits of inference with theory: A review of wolpin (2013). Journal of Economic Literature, 52(3):820–850.

Rustichini, A. and Padoa-Schioppa, C. (2015). A neuro-computational model of economic decisions. Journal of Neurophysiology, 114(3):1382–1398.

Sims, C. A. (2003). Implications of rational inattention. Journal of Monetary Economics, 50(3):665–690.

Spiegler, R. (2015). Choice complexity and market competition. Annual Review of Economics.

Starmer, C. and Sugden, R. (1991). Does the random-lottery incentive system elicit true preferences? an experimental investigation. American Economic Review, 81(4):971–978.

Strauss, D. (1979). Some results on random utility models. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 20(1):35–52.

Thurstone, L. (1927). A law of comparative judgment. Psychological review, 34(4):273–286.

Tyson, C. J. (2008). Cognitive constraints, contraction consistency, and the satisficing criterion. Journal of Economic Theory, 138(1):51–70.

Vovsha, P. (1997). Application of cross-nested logit model to mode choice in Tel Aviv, Israel, metropolitan area. Transportation Research Record, 1607(-1):6–15.

Weizsäcker, G. (2003). Ignoring the rationality of others: evidence from experimental normal-form games. Games and Economic Behavior, 44(1):145–171.

Wen, C. and Koppelman, F. (2001). The generalized nested logit model. Transportation Research Part B, 35(7):627–641.

Wilcox, N. (2008). Stochastic models for binary discrete choice under risk: A critical primer and econometric comparison. In Cox, J. C. and Harrison, G. W., editors, Risk aversion in experiments, volume 12 of Research in experimental economics, pages 197–292. Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

Wilcox, N. (2011). Stochastically more risk averse: A contextual theory of stochastic discrete choice under risk. Journal of Econometrics, 162(1):89–104.

Wilcox, N. T. (2015). Error and generalization in discrete choice under risk. Working paper.

Yellott, J. (1977). The relationship between Luce’s choice axiom, Thurstone’s theory of comparative judgment, and the double exponential distribution. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 15(2):109–144.