The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Bounded Rationality in Industrial Organization
Abstract
This paper discusses the use of bounded rationality in industrial organization. There is a long tradition of such work: Literatures from various decades have discussed irrationalities by firms and consumers. Three main approaches are found in the recent literature: Rule-of-thumb papers specify simple rules for behavior; explicit bounds papers consider agents who maximize payoffs net of cognitive costs; the psychology and economics approach typically cites experimental evidence to motivate utility-like framworks. Common to each recent literature is a focus on consumer irrationalities that firms might exploit. I discuss several new topics that have been opened up by the consideration of bounded rationality and new perspectives that have been provided on traditional topics. INTRODUCTION In the last few years there has been a surge of interest in bounded rationality in industrial organization. The field has attracted the attention of a remarkable collection of top young researchers from industrial organization and behavioral economics. Much of the recent interest has been spurred by developments in psychology and economics, but there is also a long-standing tradition of such work in industrial organization. Although the field is not yet as coherent and advanced as most fields surveyed at an Econometric Society World Congress, the fact that diverse strands of research and diverse researchers are coming together seemed to me to make it a topic for which a discussion could be useful. The terms “boundedly rational” and “behavioral” have been used by different groups of economists over the years to describe different styles of work.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Golden eggs and hyperbolic discounting
Laibson, D. (1997) · The Quarterly Journal of Economics · doi:10.1162/003355397555253 · Cited by 6,122
Good News and Bad News: Representation Theorems and Applications
Milgrom, P. R. (1981) · The Bell Journal of Economics · doi:10.2307/3003562 · Cited by 3,123
A Model of Reference-Dependent Preferences
Koszegi, B., & Rabin, M. (2006) · The Quarterly Journal of Economics · doi:10.1093/qje/121.4.1133 · Cited by 2,728
Young, H. P. (1993) · Econometrica · doi:10.2307/2951778 · Cited by 2,399
Cited by
Psychology and Economics: Evidence from the Field
DellaVigna, S. (2009) · Journal of Economic Literature · doi:10.1257/jel.47.2.315 · Cited by 2,365
Are small investors naive about incentives?
Malmendier, U., & Shanthikumar, D. (2007) · Journal of Financial Economics · doi:10.1016/j.jfineco.2007.02.001 · Cited by 544
Shrouded Attributes, Consumer Myopia, and Information Suppression in Competitive Markets
Gabaix, X., & Laibson, D. I. (2005) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.728545 · Cited by 441
Behavioral Hazard in Health Insurance *
Baicker, K., Mullainathan, S., & Schwartzstein, J. (2015) · The Quarterly Journal of Economics · doi:10.1093/qje/qjv029 · Cited by 247
Household Debt: Facts, Puzzles, Theories, and Policies
Zinman, J. (2015) · Annual Review of Economics · doi:10.1146/annurev-economics-080614-115640 · Cited by 165
Metadata
- Authors
- Ellison, G.
- Venue
- Advances in Economics and Econometrics
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press
- Published
- 2013-01-12
- Pages
- 142-174
- OpenAlex
- W1504072881
- Cited by
- 227
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 21.86
- Type
- book chapter
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Bounded Rationality in Industrial Organization. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1017/cbo9781139052276.007
- The paper
- Ellison, G. (2013). Bounded Rationality in Industrial Organization. Advances in Economics and Econometrics. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9781139052276.007
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.