1932

Abstract

We review the fast-growing work on salience and economic behavior. Psychological research shows that salient stimuli attract human attention bottom up due to their high contrast with surroundings, their surprising nature relative to recalled experiences, or their prominence. The Bordalo, Gennaioli & Shleifer (2012, 2013b, 2020) models of salience show how bottom-up attention can distort economic choice by distracting decision makers from their immediate goals or from relevant choice attributes. This approach unifies probability weighting, menu effects, reference points, and framing as distinct manifestations of bottom-up attention. We highlight new predictions and discuss open conceptual questions, as well as potential applications in finance, industrial organization, advertising, and politics.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-economics-051520-011616
2022-08-12
2024-06-21
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/economics/14/1/annurev-economics-051520-011616.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-economics-051520-011616&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Abito JM, Salant Y. 2019. The effect of product misperception on economic outcomes: evidence from the extended warranty market. Rev. Econ. Stud. 86:62285–318
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Akerlof G. 1991. Procrastination and obedience. Am. Econ. Rev. 81:21–19
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Allais M. 1953. Le comportement de l'homme rationnel devant le risque: critique des postulats et axiomes de l'école Américaine. Econometrica 21:4503–46
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Ater I, Landsman V. 2013. Do customers learn from experience? Evidence from retail banking. Manag. Sci. 59:92019–35
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Barberis N, Huang M. 2008. Stocks as lotteries: the implications of probability weighting for security prices. Am. Econ. Rev. 98:52066–100
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Barseghyan L, Molinari F, O'Donoghue T, Teitelbaum J 2013. The nature of risk preferences: evidence from insurance choices. Am. Econ. Rev. 103:62499–529
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Bernheim D, Rangel A. 2009. Beyond revealed preference: choice-theoretic foundations for behavioral welfare economics. Q. J. Econ. 124:151–104
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Bhargava S, Fisman R. 2014. Contrast effects in sequential decisions: evidence from speed dating. Rev. Econ. Stat. 96:3444–57
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Bodner R, Prelec D 1994. The centroid model of context dependent choice Work. Pap.: MIT Sloan, Cambridge, MA
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Bordalo P, Gennaioli N, Shleifer A. 2012. Salience theory of choice under risk. Q. J. Econ. 127:31243–85
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Bordalo P, Gennaioli N, Shleifer A. 2013a. Salience and asset prices. Am. Econ. Rev. 103:3623–28
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Bordalo P, Gennaioli N, Shleifer A. 2013b. Salience and consumer choice. J. Polit. Econ. 121:5803–43
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Bordalo P, Gennaioli N, Shleifer A. 2016. Competition for attention. Rev. Econ. Stud. 83:2481–513
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Bordalo P, Gennaioli N, Shleifer A. 2019. Memory and reference prices: an application to rental choice. Am. Econ. Rev. Pap. Proc. 109:5572–76
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Bordalo P, Gennaioli N, Shleifer A. 2020. Memory, attention and choice. Q. J. Econ. 135:31399–442
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Broadbent DE. 1958. Perception and Communication New York: Pergamon Press
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Bruhin A, Manai M, Pinto L. 2020. Risk and rationality: the relative importance of probability weighting and choice set dependence Work. Pap. HEC Lausanne, Switz.:
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Bushong B, Rabin M, Schwartzstein J. 2021. A model of relative thinking. Rev. Econ. Stud. 88:1162–91
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Busse M, Pope D, Pope J, Silva-Risso J. 2015. The psychological effect of weather on car purchases. Q. J. Econ. 130:1371–414
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Calzolari G, Nardotto M. 2017. Effective reminders. Manag. Sci. 63:92915–32
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Célérier C, Vallée B. 2017. Catering to investors through security design: headline rate and complexity. Q. J. Econ. 132:31469–508
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Chang T, Huang W, Wang Y. 2018. Something in the air: pollution and the demand for health insurance. Rev. Econ. Stud. 85:31609–34
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Chetty R, Looney A, Kroft K. 2009. Salience and taxation: theory and evidence. Am. Econ. Rev. 99:41145–77
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Chiappori PA, Salanié B, Salanié F, Gandhi A. 2019. From aggregate betting data to individual risk preferences. Econometrica 87:11–36
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Clark A. 2013. Whatever next? Predictive brains, situated agents and the future of cognitive science. Behav. Brain Sci. 36:3181–204
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Conlin M, O'Donoghue T, Vogelsang T. 2007. Projection bias in catalog orders. Am. Econ. Rev. 97:41217–49
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Dertwinkel-Kalt M, Gerhardt H, Riener G, Schwerter F, Strang L 2022. Concentration bias in intertemporal choice. Rev. Econ. Stud 89:3131434
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Dertwinkel-Kalt M, Köhler K, Lange MRJ, Wenzel T. 2017. Demand shifts due to salience effects: experimental evidence. J. Eur. Econ. Assoc. 15:3626–53
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Dertwinkel-Kalt M, Köster M. 2020. Salience and skewness preferences. J. Eur. Econ. Assoc. 18:5):2057–107
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Desimone R, Duncan J. 1995. Neural mechanisms and selective visual attention. Annu. Rev. Neurosci. 18:193–222
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Dessaint O, Matray A. 2017. Do managers overreact to salient risks? Evidence from hurricane strikes. J. Financ. Econ. 126:197–121
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Deutsch JA, Deutsch D. 1963. Attention: some theoretical considerations. Psychol. Rev. 87:272–300
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Dufwenberg M, Gächter S, Hennig-Schmidt H. 2011. The framing of games and the psychology of play. Games Econ. Behav. 73:2459–78
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Ellis A, Masatlioglu Y. 2022. Choice with endogenous categorization. Rev. Econ. Stud 89:124078
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Ellison G, Fischer Ellison S 2005. Lessons about markets from the Internet. J. Econ. Perspect. 19:2139–58
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Ellsberg D. 1961. Risk, ambiguity, and the Savage axioms. Q. J. Econ. 75:4643–69
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Enke B. 2020. What you see is all there is. Q. J. Econ. 135:31363–98
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Finkelstein A. 2009. E-Z tax: tax salience and tax rates. Q. J. Econ. 124:3969–1010
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Fishburn P. 1989. Non-transitive measurable utility for decision under uncertainty. J. Math. Econ. 18:187–207
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Frydman C, Mormann M. 2020. The role of salience in choice under risk: an experimental investigation Work. Pap. Marshall Sch. Bus., Univ. South. Calif. Los Angeles:
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Gabaix X. 2014. A sparsity-based model of bounded rationality. Q. J. Econ. 129:41661–710
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Gabaix X, Laibson D. 2005. Bounded rationality and directed cognition Work. Pap. Dep. Econ., Harvard Univ. Cambridge, MA:
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Gagnon-Bartsch T, Rabin M, Schwartzstein J. 2018. Channeled attention and stable errors Work. Pap., Dep. Econ., Harvard Univ. Cambridge, MA:
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Goldin J, Homonoff T. 2013. Smoke gets in your eyes: cigarette tax salience and regressivity. Am. Econ. J. Econ. Policy 5:1302–36
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Grether DM, Plott CR. 1979. Economic theory of choice and the preference reversal phenomenon. Am. Econ. Rev. 69:4623–38
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Grubb MD. 2009. Selling to overconfident consumers. Am. Econ. Rev. 99:51770–807
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Grubb MD. 2015. Failing to choose the best price: theory, evidence, and policy. Rev. Ind. Organ. 47:303–40
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Handel B, Schwartzstein J. 2018. Frictions or mental gaps: What's behind the information we (don't) use and when do we care?. J. Econ. Perspect. 32:1155–78
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Hanna R, Mullainathan S, Schwartzstein J. 2014. Learning through noticing: theory and evidence from a field experiment. Q. J. Econ. 129:31311–53
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Hartzmark SM, Shue K. 2018. A tough act to follow: contrast effects in financial markets. J. Finance 73:1567–613
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Hastings J, Shapiro J. 2013. Fungibility and consumer choice: evidence from commodity price shocks. Q. J. Econ. 128:1449–98
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Hawkins J, Blakeslee S. 2004. On Intelligence New York: Macmillan
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Heath TB, Chatterjee S. 1995. Asymmetric decoy effects on lower-quality versus higher-quality brands: meta-analytic and experimental evidence. J. Consum. Res. 22:3268–84
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Huber J, Payne JW, Puto C. 1982. Adding asymmetrically dominated alternatives: violations of regularity and the similarity hypothesis. J. Consum. Res. 9:190–98
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Itti L, Baldi P. 2009. Bayesian surprise attracts human attention. Vis. Res. 49:101295–306
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Itti L, Koch C. 2001. Computational modelling of visual attention. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 2:1–11
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Itti L, Koch C, Niebur E. 1998. A model of saliency-based visual attention for rapid scene analysis. IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell. 20:111254–59
    [Google Scholar]
  58. James W 1890. The Principles of Psychology New York: Henry Holt
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Kahneman D. 2011. Thinking, Fast and Slow New York: Macmillan
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Kahneman D, Chajczyk D. 1983. Tests of the automaticity of reading: dilution of Stroop effects by color-irrelevant stimuli. J. Exp. Psychol. 9:4497–509
    [Google Scholar]
  61. Kahneman D, Knetsch J, Thaler R. 1986. Fairness as a constraint on profit seeking: entitlements in the market. Am. Econ. Rev. 76:4728–41
    [Google Scholar]
  62. Kahneman D, Miller DT. 1986. Norm theory: comparing reality to its alternatives. Psychol. Rev. 93:2136–53
    [Google Scholar]
  63. Kahneman D, Tversky A. 1979. Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica 47:2263–92
    [Google Scholar]
  64. Kahneman D, Tversky A. 1984. Choices, values, and frames. Am. Psychol. 39:4341–50
    [Google Scholar]
  65. Karlan D, Ratan AL, Zinman J. 2014. Savings by and for the poor: a research review and agenda. Rev. Income Wealth 60:36–78
    [Google Scholar]
  66. Khaw MW, Li Z, Woodford M. 2021. Cognitive imprecision and small-stakes risk aversion. Rev. Econ. Stud. 88:41979–2013
    [Google Scholar]
  67. Kontek K. 2016. A critical note on salience theory under risk. Econ. Lett. 149:168–71
    [Google Scholar]
  68. Koschate-Fischer N, Wüllner K. 2017. New developments in behavioral pricing research. Rev. Income Wealth 87:6809–75
    [Google Scholar]
  69. Köster M. 2021. A multivariate salience theory of choice under risk Work. Pap., Cent. Eur. Univ. Vienna:
    [Google Scholar]
  70. Kőszegi B, Rabin M. 2006. A model of reference-dependent preferences. Q. J. Econ. 121:41133–65
    [Google Scholar]
  71. Kőszegi B, Szeidl A. 2013. A model of focusing in economic choice. Q. J. Econ. 128:153–104
    [Google Scholar]
  72. Krajbich I, Armel C, Rangel A. 2010. Visual fixations and the computation and comparison of value in simple choice. Nat. Neurosci. 13:101292–98
    [Google Scholar]
  73. Krajbich I, Rangel A. 2011. Multialternative drift-diffusion model predicts the relationship between visual fixations and choice in value-based decisions. PNAS 108:3313852–57
    [Google Scholar]
  74. Krupka E, Weber R. 2013. Identifying social norms using coordination games: Why does dictator game sharing vary?. J. Eur. Econ. Assoc. 11:3495–524
    [Google Scholar]
  75. Kunreuther H, Ginsberg R, Miller L, Sagi P, Slovic P et al. 1978. Disaster Insurance Protection: Public Policy Lessons New York: Wiley
    [Google Scholar]
  76. Lanzani G. 2022. Correlation made simple: applications to salience and regret theory. Q. J. Econ 137:295987
    [Google Scholar]
  77. Lewandowsky S, Jetter M, Ecker UKH. 2020. Using the president's tweets to understand political diversion in the age of social media. Nat. Commun. 11:5764
    [Google Scholar]
  78. Li X, Camerer C. 2022. Predictable effects of bottom-up visual salience in experimental decisions and games. Q. J. Econ. Forthcoming
    [Google Scholar]
  79. Lian C, Ma Y, Wang C. 2019. Low interest rates and risk-taking: evidence from individual investment decisions. Rev. Financ. Stud. 32:62107–48
    [Google Scholar]
  80. Lichtenstein S, Slovic P. 1971. Reversals of preference between bids and choices in gambling decisions. J. Exp. Psychol. 89:146–55
    [Google Scholar]
  81. Lieder F, Griffiths T. 2020. Resource-rational analysis: understanding human cognition as the optimal use of limited computational resources. Behav. Brain Sci. 43:1–60
    [Google Scholar]
  82. Lieder F, Hsu M, Griffiths T. 2014. The high availability of extreme events serves resource-rational decision-making. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, 36th https://escholarship.org/uc/item/5433c2jb
    [Google Scholar]
  83. Liesefeld HR, Liesefeld AM, Müller HJ, Rangelov D. 2017. Saliency maps for finding changes in visual scenes. Atten. Percept. Psychophys. 79:2190–201
    [Google Scholar]
  84. Lockwood B, Allcott H, Taubinsky D, Sial A. 2021. The optimal design of state-run lotteries Work. Pap. Dep. Econ., Univ. Calif. Berkeley:
    [Google Scholar]
  85. Loewenstein G, O'Donoghue T, Rabin M. 2003. Projection bias in predicting future utility. Q. J. Econ. 118:41209–48
    [Google Scholar]
  86. Loomes G, Sugden R. 1982. Regret theory: an alternative theory of rational choice under uncertainty. Econ. J. 92:368805–24
    [Google Scholar]
  87. Mormann M, Russo E. 2021. Does attention increase the value of choice alternatives?. Trends Cogn. Sci. 25:4305–15
    [Google Scholar]
  88. Mullainathan S, Schwartzstein J, Congdon WJ. 2012. A reduced-form approach to behavioral public finance. Annu. Rev. Econ. 4:511–40
    [Google Scholar]
  89. Mullainathan S, Schwartzstein J, Shleifer A. 2008. Coarse thinking and persuasion. Q. J. Econ. 123:2577–619
    [Google Scholar]
  90. Nobre A, Mesulam M 2014. Large scale networks for attentional biases. The Oxford Handbook of Attention A Nobre, S Kastner 105–51 Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  91. Ortmeyer GK, Quelch JA, Salmon WJ. 1991. Restoring credibility to retail pricing. MIT Sloan Manag. Rev. 33:155–66
    [Google Scholar]
  92. Pachur T, Schulte-Mecklenbeck M, Murphy R, Hertwig R 2018. Prospect theory reflects selective allocation of attention. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 147:2147–69
    [Google Scholar]
  93. Pashler H. 1988. Familiarity and visual change detection. Percept. Psychophys. 44:369–78
    [Google Scholar]
  94. Pashler H. 1998. The Psychology of Attention Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
    [Google Scholar]
  95. Patrick K, Raab F, Adams M, Dillon L, Zabinski M et al. 2009. A text message–based intervention for weight loss: randomized controlled trial. J. Med. Internet Res. 11:1e1
    [Google Scholar]
  96. Peters RJ, Itti L. 2007. Beyond bottom-up: incorporating task-dependent influences into a computational model of spatial attention. 2007 IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition New York: IEEE
    [Google Scholar]
  97. Pratt JW, Wise DA, Zeckhauser R. 1979. Price differences in almost competitive markets. Q. J. Econ. 93:2189–211
    [Google Scholar]
  98. Rao R, Ballard D. 1999. Predictive coding in the visual cortex: a functional interpretation of some extra-classical receptive-field effects. Nat. Neurosci. 2:79–87
    [Google Scholar]
  99. Remington RW, Johnston JC, Yanis S. 1992. Involuntary attentional capture by abrupt onsets. Percept. Psychophys. 51:726–44
    [Google Scholar]
  100. Rubinstein A. 1988. Similarity and decision-making under risk. J. Econ. Theory 46:145–53
    [Google Scholar]
  101. Savage LJ. 1954. The Foundations of Statistics New York: John Wiley & Sons
    [Google Scholar]
  102. Schulte-Mecklenbeck M, Johnson J, Böckenholt U, Goldstein D, Russo J et al. 2017. Process-tracing methods in decision making: on growing up in the 70s. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 26:5442–50
    [Google Scholar]
  103. Schwartzstein J. 2014. Selective attention and learning. J. Eur. Econ. Assoc. 6:11423–52
    [Google Scholar]
  104. Schwartzstein J, Sunderam A. 2021. Using models to persuade. Am. Econ. Rev. 111:1276–323
    [Google Scholar]
  105. Shiffrin RM, Gardner GT. 1972. Visual processing capacity and attentional control. J. Exp. Psychol. 93:172–82
    [Google Scholar]
  106. Shimojo S, Simion C, Shimojo E, Scheier C. 2003. Gaze bias both reflects and influences preference. Nat. Neurosci. 6:121317–22
    [Google Scholar]
  107. Simons DJ, Chabris CF. 1999. Gorillas in our midst: sustained inattentional blindness for dynamic events. Perception 28:91059–74
    [Google Scholar]
  108. Simonsohn U. 2006. New Yorkers commute more everywhere: contrast effect in the field. Rev. Econ. Stat. 88:11–9
    [Google Scholar]
  109. Simonsohn U, Loewenstein G. 2006. Mistake #37: the effect of previously encountered prices on current housing demand. Econ. J. 116:508175–99
    [Google Scholar]
  110. Simonson I. 1989. Choice based on reasons: the case of attraction and compromise effects. J. Consum. Res. 16:2158–74
    [Google Scholar]
  111. Simonson I, Tversky A. 1992. Choice in context: tradeoff contrast and extremeness aversion. J. Mark. Res. 29:3281–95
    [Google Scholar]
  112. Sims CA. 2003. Implications of rational inattention. J. Monet. Econ. 50:3665–90
    [Google Scholar]
  113. Soltani A, De Martino B, Camerer C. 2012. A range normalization model of context dependent choice: a new model and evidence. PLOS Comput. Biol. 8:7e1002607
    [Google Scholar]
  114. Soman D, Gourville J. 2001. Transaction decoupling: how price bundling affects the decision to consume. J. Mark. Res. 38:130–44
    [Google Scholar]
  115. Stango V, Zinman J. 2014. Limited and varying consumer attention: evidence from shocks to the salience of bank overdraft fees. Rev. Financ. Stud. 27:4990–1030
    [Google Scholar]
  116. Sussman AB, Alter AL. 2012. The exception is the rule: underestimating and overspending on exceptional expenses. J. Consum. Res. 39:4800–14
    [Google Scholar]
  117. Sydnor J. 2010. (Over)insuring modest risks. Am. Econ. J. Appl. Econ. 2:4177–99
    [Google Scholar]
  118. Taylor S, Thompson S. 1982. Stalking the elusive vividness effect. Psychol. Rev. 89:2155–81
    [Google Scholar]
  119. Thaler R. 1985. Mental accounting and consumer choice. Mark. Sci. 4:3199–214
    [Google Scholar]
  120. Thaler R, Sunstein CR. 2008. Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth and Happiness New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  121. Treisman A, Gelade G. 1980. A feature integration theory of attention. Cogn. Psychol. 12:197–136
    [Google Scholar]
  122. Tversky A, Kahneman D. 1991. Loss aversion in riskless choice: a reference-dependent model. Q. J. Econ. 106:41039–61
    [Google Scholar]
  123. Tversky A, Kahneman D. 1992. Advances in prospect theory: cumulative representation of uncertainty. J. Risk Uncertain. 5:297–323
    [Google Scholar]
  124. Tversky A, Simonson I. 1993. Context-dependent preferences. Manag. Sci. 39:101179–89
    [Google Scholar]
  125. Tversky A, Slovic P, Kahneman D. 1990. The causes of preference reversals. Am. Econ. Rev. 80:1204–17
    [Google Scholar]
  126. Woodford M. 2012. Prospect theory as efficient perceptual distortion. Am. Econ. Rev. 102:341–46
    [Google Scholar]
  127. Woodford M. 2020. Modeling imprecision in perception, valuation, and choice. Annu. Rev. Econ. 12:579–601
    [Google Scholar]
  128. Wu C, Cosguner K. 2020. Profiting from the decoy effect: a case study of an online diamond retailer. Mark. Sci. 39:5974–95
    [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-economics-051520-011616
Loading
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-economics-051520-011616
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error