Why Is Choice Stochastic? Deliberate Randomization vs. Strength of Preference

Choice inconsistency is ubiquitous in economic decision making. Standard random utility models as well as sequential sampling models account for it and predict a relation between inconsistency rates and utility differences (strength-of-preference effects). The latter phenomenon is well-established empirically. However, recent literature argues that inconsistency might be the outcome of a deliberate attempt to implement an explicit preference for randomization. We collected new data in three preregistered experiments and also reanalyzed the previous evidence for this explanation. Our evidence is generally well-explained by strength-of-preference effects. That is, people are less consistent for choices that are closer to indifference. When an option to randomize is made explicit and salient, this option is sometimes chosen. However, in a within-subject design, we statistically reject the hypothesis that explicit mixing in one-shot decisions (revealed preference for randomization) equals choice proportions in repeated decisions (choice inconsistency). The deliberate choice of randomization devices is influenced both by explicit costs (if any) and whether decision makers are close to indifference between the nonrandomized alternatives. The latter effect might create a correlation with choice inconsistency at the aggregate level. This paper was accepted by Dorothea Kübler, behavioral economics and decision analysis. Funding: Financial support from the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation [Grant PID2022-136977NB-I00] is gratefully acknowledged. Supplemental Material: The online appendix and data files are available at https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2024.05415 .

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Management Science
Published
2026-05-22
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2024.05415
Primary Topic
Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Why Is Choice Stochastic? Deliberate Randomization vs. Strength of Preference

Carlos Alós‐Ferrer, Michele Garagnani, Aldo Rustichini, Johannes T. Buckenmaier
Management Science
Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
article

Why Is Choice Stochastic? Deliberate Randomization vs. Strength of Preference

Carlos Alós‐Ferrer, Michele Garagnani, Aldo Rustichini, Johannes T. Buckenmaier
article en

Abstract

Choice inconsistency is ubiquitous in economic decision making. Standard random utility models as well as sequential sampling models account for it and predict a relation between inconsistency rates and utility differences (strength-of-preference effects). The latter phenomenon is well-established empirically. However, recent literature argues that inconsistency might be the outcome of a deliberate attempt to implement an explicit preference for randomization. We collected new data in three preregistered experiments and also reanalyzed the previous evidence for this explanation. Our evidence is generally well-explained by strength-of-preference effects. That is, people are less consistent for choices that are closer to indifference. When an option to randomize is made explicit and salient, this option is sometimes chosen. However, in a within-subject design, we statistically reject the hypothesis that explicit mixing in one-shot decisions (revealed preference for randomization) equals choice proportions in repeated decisions (choice inconsistency). The deliberate choice of randomization devices is influenced both by explicit costs (if any) and whether decision makers are close to indifference between the nonrandomized alternatives. The latter effect might create a correlation with choice inconsistency at the aggregate level. This paper was accepted by Dorothea Kübler, behavioral economics and decision analysis. Funding: Financial support from the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation [Grant PID2022-136977NB-I00] is gratefully acknowledged. Supplemental Material: The online appendix and data files are available at https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2024.05415 .

Management Science
University of Minnesota (US), University of Minnesota System (US), Twin Cities Orthopedics (US), Department of Finance (AU), Mind Australia (AU), Institute for Independent Studies Zürich (CH), Lancaster University (GB)
Peace, Justice and strong institutions
Openalex Percentile: Top 3%
Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.