We introduce a general method for identifying the *sets* of best alternatives of decision makers in each choice sets, i.e., their *choice correspondences*, experimentally. In contrast, most experiments force the choice of a *single* alternative in …
Most experiments force the choice of a singleton in each choice set, whereas the theory of choices deals with _choice correspondence_, i.e., assume that decision makers can choose _sets_ of alternatives. I introduce a methodology for identifying …
Most experiments force the choice of a singleton in each choice set, whereas the theory of choices deals with _choice correspondence_, i.e., assume that decision makers can choose _sets_ of alternatives. I introduce a methodology for identifying …
Experiments in economics generally elicit a choice function, whereas most of the theoretical literature use a choice correspondence as a primitive. I build a methodology for eliciting choice correspondences in an incentive-compatible manner, …
Experiments in economics generally elicit a choice function, whereas most of the theoretical literature use a choice correspondence as a primitive. I build a methodology for eliciting choice correspondences in an incentive-compatible manner, …
Experiments in economics generally elicit a choice function, whereas most of the theoretical literature use a choice correspondence as a primitive. I build a methodology for eliciting choice correspondences in an incentive-compatible manner, …
Experiments in economics generally elicit a choice function, whereas most of the theoretical literature use a choice correspondence as a primitive. I build a methodology for eliciting choice correspondences in an incentive-compatible manner, …
Experiments in economics generally elicit a choice function, whereas most of the theoretical literature use a choice correspondence as a primitive. I build a methodology for eliciting choice correspondences in an incentive-compatible manner, …