Salience

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
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
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.:
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 89:31314–34
    [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 89:1240–78
    [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:
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:
43. Gagnon-Bartsch T, Rabin M, Schwartzstein J. 2018. Channeled attention and stable errors Work. Pap., Dep. Econ., Harvard Univ. Cambridge, MA:
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
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
59. Kahneman D. 2011. Thinking, Fast and Slow New York: Macmillan
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:
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
76. Lanzani G. 2022. Correlation made simple: applications to salience and regret theory. Q. J. Econ 137:2959–87
    [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:
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
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
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
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
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]