Discussion of “Risk Preference Types, Limited Consideration, and Welfare” by Levon Barseghyan and Francesca Molinari

Abstract

Click to increase image sizeClick to decrease image size Disclosure StatementI state that there are no competing interests to declare.Notes1 Throughout the economics and marketing literature, consideration sets have also been called “search sets,” “evoked sets,” or “(endogenous) choice sets.”2 For example, see Hauser and Wernerfelt (Citation1990) for a variety of grocery store products, Roberts and Lattin (Citation1991) for cereal, De los Santos, Hortçsu, and Wildenbeest (Citation2012) for books, Honka (Citation2014) for auto insurance, Koulayev (Citation2014) and Ursu (Citation2018) for hotels, Bronnenberg, Kim, and Mela (Citation2016) for digital cameras, Honka, Hortçsu, and Vitorino (Citation2017) for savings accounts, Ursu, Wang, and Chintagunta (Citation2020) for restaurants, Kapor (Citation2020) for colleges, Yavorsky, Honka, and Chen (Citation2021), Gardete and Hunter (Citation2020), and Moraga-González et al. (Citation2022) for cars, Morozov et al. (Citation2021) for cosmetics, and Zhang et al. (Citation2023) for shoes.3 For example, consumers’ average consideration set sizes are 2.4 for auto insurance (Honka Citation2014), 2.8–6.4 for digital cameras (Bronnenberg, Kim, and Mela Citation2016), 2.5 for savings accounts (Honka, Hortçsu, and Vitorino Citation2017), 2.3 for online used cars (Gardete and Hunter Citation2020), 1.4 for cosmetics (Morozov et al. Citation2021), 1.1 for new car purchases (Yavorsky, Honka, and Chen Citation2021), 1.7 for home improvement products (Amano, Rhodes, and Seiler Citation2022), and 1.9 for shoes (Zhang et al. Citation2023).