|
Field
Abstract
|
Before
When cognitive limitations prevent individuals from considering all available options, their choices may deviate from preference maximization. We introduce a framework incorporating choice procedures in which individuals consider at least two options. We show that choices under sequential elimination (whereby options are eliminated one by one until only one survives) are consistent with preference maximization, whereas choices under the direct procedure (whereby an option is selected directly from menus) may not be. Accordingly, we conduct a randomized controlled experiment with risky decision problems to test whether sequential elimination improves choice consistency relative to the direct procedure among participants with lower cognitive ability. To examine the attentional mechanism, we estimate the effect of sequential elimination among participants with higher attentional deficits and in the overall sample. Moreover, we investigate whether the improvement attributable to sequential elimination persists compared to a minimum-time treatment (which imposes a minimum response time), and we explore elimination patterns.
|
After
When cognitive limitations prevent individuals from considering all available options, their choices may deviate from preference maximization. We introduce a framework incorporating choice procedures in which individuals consider at least two options. We show that choices under sequential elimination (whereby options are eliminated one by one until only one survives) are consistent with preference maximization, whereas choices under the direct procedure (whereby an option is selected directly from menus) may not be. Accordingly, we conduct a randomized controlled experiment with risky decision problems to test whether sequential elimination improves choice consistency relative to the direct procedure among participants with lower cognitive ability. To isolate the attentional mechanism, we examine the effect of sequential elimination among participants with higher attentional deficits. Moreover, we investigate whether the improvement attributable to sequential elimination persists compared to a minimum-time treatment (which imposes a minimum response time), and we analyze elimination patterns.
|
|
Field
Last Published
|
Before
October 27, 2025 09:02 AM
|
After
December 04, 2025 06:10 AM
|
|
Field
Intervention Start Date
|
Before
October 26, 2025
|
After
December 08, 2025
|
|
Field
Intervention End Date
|
Before
August 31, 2026
|
After
January 31, 2026
|
|
Field
Primary Outcomes (Explanation)
|
Before
Our principal measure of economic rationality is choice consistency, defined as a binary variable equal to 1 if a participant’s choices satisfy the Generalized Axiom of Revealed Preference (GARP), a necessary and sufficient condition for consistency with preference maximization (Afriat, 1967; Varian, 1982). Guided by our theoretical framework, we pre-register the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 1: Sequential elimination improves choice consistency relative to the direct procedure among individuals with cognitive limitations.
We test this hypothesis among low-IQ participants (those scoring at or below the sample median), who serve as a proxy for individuals with cognitive limitations.
As pre-registered robustness checks, we employ alternative measures of economic rationality: the number of GARP violations, the Houtman–Maks Index (HMI; Houtman and Maks, 1985), and stricter variants of these measures that additionally impose first-order stochastic dominance (FSD). The number of GARP violations quantifies departures from rationality. The HMI is defined as the minimum number of choices that must be removed to achieve consistency, with removed choices typically interpreted as mistakes. The FSD-based variants impose a stricter normative benchmark for decision-making under risk. These measures offer complementary assessments of sequential elimination, varying in stringency and granularity. The Supplementary Materials report the minimum detectable effects for all measures, providing a complete account of design sensitivity.
References:
Afriat, Sidney N. 1967. “The Construction of Utility Functions from Expenditure Data.” International Economic Review 8 (1): 67–77.
Houtman, Martijn, and Julian Maks. 1985. “Determining All Maximal Data Subsets Consistent with Revealed Preference.” Kwantitatieve Methoden 19 (1): 89–104.
Varian, Hal R. 1982. “The Nonparametric Approach to Demand Analysis.” Econometrica 50 (4): 945–973.
|
After
Our principal measure of economic rationality is choice consistency, defined as a binary variable equal to 1 if a participant’s choices satisfy the Generalized Axiom of Revealed Preference (GARP), a necessary and sufficient condition for consistency with preference maximization (Afriat, 1967; Varian, 1982). Guided by our theoretical framework, we pre-register the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 1: Sequential elimination improves choice consistency relative to the direct procedure among individuals with cognitive limitations.
We test this hypothesis by contrasting Sequential Elimination and the Direct Procedure treatments among low-IQ participants (those scoring at or below the sample median), who serve as our primary proxy for individuals with cognitive limitations. To capture the extent of deviations from rationality, we pre-register the Houtman–Maks Index (HMI, Houtman and Maks, 1985) as a discrete metric. The HMI is defined as the minimum number of choices that must be removed to achieve consistency, with removed choices typically interpreted as mistakes. As robustness measures, we employ the number of GARP violations and stricter variants of these measures that impose first-order stochastic dominance (FSD). These measures offer complementary assessments of sequential elimination, varying in stringency and granularity. The Supplementary Materials report the minimum detectable effects for all measures, providing a comprehensive account of design sensitivity.
References:
Afriat, Sidney N. 1967. “The Construction of Utility Functions from Expenditure Data.” International Economic Review 8 (1): 67–77.
Houtman, Martijn, and Julian Maks. 1985. “Determining All Maximal Data Subsets Consistent with Revealed Preference.” Kwantitatieve Methoden 19 (1): 89–104.
Varian, Hal R. 1982. “The Nonparametric Approach to Demand Analysis.” Econometrica 50 (4): 945–973.
|
|
Field
Planned Number of Observations
|
Before
We target an effective sample of 600 participants. To allow for an anticipated 5% exclusion rate due to failed comprehension checks, we plan to recruit up to 630 participants.
|
After
We target 600 participants (200 per treatment arm) in the final analytic sample. Anticipating a 5% exclusion rate due to failing the decision-problem check, we will recruit 630 participants, with additional recruitment if needed to reach the target.
|
|
Field
Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms
|
Before
200 participants per treatment (including 100 low-IQ participants per treatment).
|
After
200 participants per treatment arm. Based on the median split, this yields an internal target of 100 low-IQ participants per treatment arm.
|
|
Field
Intervention (Hidden)
|
Before
Participants are randomly assigned to one of three treatments: Sequential Elimination, the Direct Procedure, or the Minimum-Time Procedure. All treatment conditions employ closely comparable interfaces and instructions to isolate procedural differences. For each decision problem, participants select an option from a vertical list of options on the screen's left side. Each treatment begins with a practice trial. Example screenshots of the treatments are included in the Supplementary Materials.
In Sequential Elimination, participants make their choice by sequentially eliminating the options they do not prefer until only one option remains. To eliminate an option, they click on it, which moves it to a "Trash" box on the right side of the screen. Until submitting their choice, participants can reinstate any eliminated option by clicking on it in the Trash box.
In the Direct Procedure, participants make their choice after sequentially examining all options. To mark an option as examined, they click on it, which moves it to a "Choice List" on the right side of the screen. After all options are in the Choice List, participants select their preferred option by clicking on it in the Choice List. In the instructions, this condition is referred to as “Sequential Examination” to control for potential naming effects.
In the Minimum-Time Procedure, participants make their choice directly from the initial list of options. They must spend at least 35 seconds on each decision problem before submitting their choice. This minimum duration is calibrated from pilot data to match the average time spent under Sequential Elimination. A timer on the right side of the screen displays the time elapsed since each problem appeared.
|
After
Participants are randomly assigned to one of three treatments: Sequential Elimination, the Direct Procedure, or the Minimum-Time Procedure. All treatment conditions employ closely comparable interfaces and instructions to isolate procedural differences. For each decision problem, participants select an option from a vertical list of options on the screen's left side. Each treatment begins with a practice trial. Example screenshots of the treatments are included in the Supplementary Materials.
In Sequential Elimination, participants make their choice by sequentially eliminating the options they do not prefer until only one option remains. To eliminate an option, they click on it, moving it to a "Trash" box on the right side of the screen. Until submitting their choice, participants can reinstate any eliminated option by clicking on it in the Trash box.
In the Direct Procedure, participants make their choice after sequentially examining all options. To mark an option as examined, they click on it, moving it to a "Choice List" on the right side of the screen. After all options are in the Choice List, participants select their preferred option from that list. In the instructions, this condition is referred to as “Sequential Examination” to control for potential naming effects.
In the Minimum-Time Procedure, participants make their choice directly from the initial list of options. They must spend at least 35 seconds on each decision problem before submitting their choice. This minimum duration is calibrated from pilot data to match the average time spent under Sequential Elimination. A timer on the right side of the screen displays the time elapsed since each problem appeared.
|
|
Field
Secondary Outcomes (End Points)
|
Before
Effects by attentional deficits; response time and deliberation time; elimination behavior.
|
After
Effects by attentional deficits (mechanism); response time and deliberation time; elimination behavior.
|
|
Field
Secondary Outcomes (Explanation)
|
Before
For additional analyses of robustness and mechanisms, we examine whether Sequential Elimination affects choice consistency among participants with higher attentional deficits (those scoring at or above the sample median) and in the overall sample, relative to the Direct Procedure. We also contrast Sequential Elimination with the Minimum-Time Procedure to investigate whether the effect of the former persists when response times are comparable. Additionally, we measure deliberation time as the interval until the final click on any option, to evaluate whether imposing a simple time requirement influences deliberation and, in turn, choice consistency. Finally, we analyze elimination behavior under Sequential Elimination to explore systematic patterns that may account for its effect.
|
After
To isolate the underlying mechanism, we examine whether Sequential Elimination improves economic rationality (as captured by choice consistency and the HMI) relative to the Direct Procedure among participants with higher attentional deficits (those scoring at or above the sample median on the ASRS inattention subscale), as our secondary proxy for cognitive limitations.
As a supplementary analysis, we test for treatment effects in the full sample and using the full ASRS scale. Additionally, we contrast Sequential Elimination with the Minimum-Time Procedure to investigate whether the effect of the former persists when response times are comparable. We also measure deliberation time as the interval until the final click on any option, to evaluate whether imposing a simple time requirement influences deliberation and, in turn, choice consistency. Finally, we analyze elimination behavior under Sequential Elimination to explore systematic patterns that may account for its effect.
|