## Abstract

Models of choice over menus aim at capturing the effect of some behavioral or non-standard element of decision-making on the behavior of a single decision-maker. These models are usually compared with the standard model of choice over menus, in which the decision-maker chooses a menu whose best item is better than that of all other available ones. However, in many empirical settings such as experimental studies, choice data come from a population of decision-makers with possibly heterogeneous attitudes and tastes. This heterogeneity can make the observed choices over menus stochastic. This fact calls for a stochastic characterization of models of choice over menus to be able to better compare and contrast different models empirically. In this paper, I do this task for the standard model, which would be an extension of the random utility model to the realm of choice over menus. In particular, I provide the necessary and sufficient conditions, i.e., axioms on (stochastic) choice data over menus for it to be consistent with a population of decision-makers each of whom behaves according to the standard model. The axioms that characterize the model are the axiom of revealed stochastic preferences over singletons and three rationality axioms.

## Keywords

Stochastic choice Random utility Dynamic choice Menu## Notes

## Supplementary material

## References

- Block, H. D., & Marschak, J. (1960). Random orderings and stochastic theories of responses.
*Contributions to Probability and Statistics*,*2*, 97–132.Google Scholar - Chatterjee, K., & Krishna, R. V. (2009). A “dual self” representation for stochastic temptation.
*American Economic Journal: Microeconomics*,*1*(2), 148–67.Google Scholar - Dekel, E., & Lipman, B. L. (2012). Costly self control and random self indulgence.
*Econometrica*,*80*(3), 1271–1302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Fudenberg, D., & Strzalecki, T. (2015). Dynamic logit with choice aversion.
*Econometrica*,*83*(2), 651–691.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Gul, F., & Pesendorfer, W. (2006). Random expected utility.
*Econometrica*,*74*(1), 121–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Gul, F., & Pesendorfer, W. (2001). Temptation and self control.
*Econometrica*,*69*(6), 1403–1435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Kreps, D. M. (1979). A representation theorem for “preference for flexibility”.
*Econometrica*,*47*(3), 565–577.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - McFadden, D. (1978). Modeling the choice of residential location.
*Transportation Research Record*,*673*, 72–77.Google Scholar - McFadden, D., & Richter, M.K. (1990). Stochastic rationality and revealed stochastic preference.
*Preferences, uncertainty, and optimality, essays in honor of Leo Hurwicz*(pp. 161–186). Westview Press: Boulder, COGoogle Scholar - Ortoleva, P. (2013). The price of flexibility: Towards a theory of thinking aversion.
*Journal of Economic Theory*,*148*(3), 903–934.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Strotz, R. H. (1955). Myopia and inconsistency in dynamic utility maximization.
*The Review of Economic Studies*,*23*(3), 165–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar