Exposing people to infeasible options weakens an influencer's sway over real choices — a formal model shows that aspirational exposure dilutes influence on feasible alternatives and, crucially, lets researchers recover both influence strength and private preferences from two exposure regimes using testable restrictions.

Main Finding

The paper formulates the Aspiration-Weighted Luce Model (AWLM): when an influencer’s displayed distribution q spans a strict superset I ⊃ S of the decision maker’s feasible set S, the follower mixes her Luce (multinomial logit) idiosyncratic propensities p0(·|S) with the influencer’s full exposure q, then renormalizes that mixed “attempt target” onto S. The resulting choice rule is p(x | S; q, α) = ((1 − α) p0(x|S) + α q(x)) / ((1 − α) + α qS) , x ∈ S, where qS = ∑x∈S q(x). A central comparative-static — “aspirational dampening” — follows: holding the influencer’s within-feasible composition q(·|S) fixed, increasing exposure to infeasible alternatives (reducing qS) reduces the effective influence on feasible choices. The model is axiomatized and its parameters (influence strength α and the follower’s Luce weights) are nonparametrically identifiable from as few as two exposure regimes; the paper also provides consistent estimators for noisy data.

Key Points

• Setup

  • Finite alternative universe X. Follower faces feasible set S; influencer exposes over I with S ⊆ I.
  • Follower’s uninfluenced choice is Luce: p0(x|S) ∝ u(x) on S.
  • Influencer exposure q may place mass outside S; exposed infeasible mass = 1 − qS.

• AWLM formula and interpretation

  • “Mix then normalize”: attempt target M = (1 − α)·(zero-extended p0) + α·q on X; realized choice is M renormalized onto S.
  • Effective outcome-level weight on influencer within S is β(qS) = α qS / ((1 − α) + α qS). Thus p = (1 − β) p0 + β q(·|S).
  • Microfoundation: sampling-from-M until a feasible draw is observed yields the AWLM probabilities; α is the per-attempt influence probability, β(qS) is the realized influence conditional on feasibility.

• Aspirational dampening

  • If the influencer reallocates mass from S to I \ S while keeping q(·|S) fixed, the follower’s choice moves closer to p0: decreasing qS lowers β and attenuates influence on feasible options.
  • Intuition: mass on infeasible options is “wasted” — attempts that land infeasible are discarded, weakening the realized influence.

• Behavioral/axiomatic characterization

  • Controlled Collinearity: within a fixed feasible-share level μ (qS = μ), changes in the influencer’s within-S composition produce proportional linear shifts in the follower’s choice (intra-aspiration irrelevance + proportional response).
  • A second restriction (an affine aspiration penalty / unit-slope leverage relation across μ-levels) pins down how persuasion strength scales with feasible share; together these recover the AWLM structure and a menu-invariant α.

• Identification & estimation

  • Nonparametric point identification of α and the follower’s Luce weights can be achieved from as few as two distinct exposure regimes (variation in q), even when S is fixed.
  • The identification exploits geometric collinearity conditions: observed choice shifts must align with exposure shifts in a particular way, generating testable overidentifying restrictions.
  • The paper outlines consistent estimators for settings with noisy choice observations.

• Robustness & variants

  • AWLM nests the standard within-menu convex-mixture influence model when I = S (qS = 1, β = α).
  • Alternative failure/retry rules (e.g., reverting after infeasible draw or partial retry probability r) produce related formulae; AWLM corresponds to full persistence (retry until feasible).

Data & Methods

• Nature of contribution: theoretical model + axiomatic characterization + identification theory + estimation methods. No empirical dataset is used.
• Methods used
  • Stochastic-choice framework built on Luce/multinomial logit baseline.
  • Constructive microfoundation: independent draws from attempt target M until a feasible alternative is drawn (yields closed-form probabilities).
  • Comparative-statics derived analytically via the β(qS) mapping.
  • Axiomatic approach: Controlled Collinearity (menu-by-menu) and a cross-menu affine restriction to recover global α and Luce utilities.
  • Identification argument: exploiting geometry of probability simplex and collinearity of observed shifts across exposures; shows point identification from minimal exposure variation and provides overidentifying tests.
  • Estimation: proposes consistent estimators for noisy choice frequency data (details in paper’s Section 5 and appendices).
• Empirical primitives required for applied work
  • Observed stochastic choice distributions of followers over S under multiple exposure regimes q (exposure distributions must be observed or credibly known).
  • Knowledge of the feasible set S.
  • Variation in influencer exposures (in practice: experimental or natural variation in what an influencer or platform displays).

Implications for AI Economics

• Recommendation systems & content curation

  • Platforms/algorithms that curate feed content determine q. AWLM implies that showcasing aspirational (infeasible) items reduces conversion/influence on feasible products for constrained users. Recommendation objectives that maximize aspirational image may therefore trade off immediate conversions.
  • Algorithm designers should consider qS (share of feasible content) when optimizing for behavioral outcomes like purchases or engagement among budget-constrained cohorts.

• AI-generated influencers and synthetic content

  • Large-scale AI content (e.g., synthetic influencers, image/video generators) can easily populate feeds with unattainable/high-end options. AWLM predicts systematic dampening of influence on realistic consumer choices when exposure skews toward infeasible alternatives, with implications for monetization and user welfare.

• Preference measurement and demand estimation

  • AWLM provides a new identification strategy: preferences (Luce utilities) can be recovered from variation in external exposure q even when a consumer’s budget/set S is fixed. This is useful in settings where budgets cannot be changed but feed composition can (experiments on platform exposure).
  • The model yields testable restrictions that applied researchers can use to falsify aspiration-based influence vs. alternative models (e.g., attention/consideration, halo effects).

• Marketing strategy and welfare

  • Aspirational marketing (showing unattainable goods) can dilute persuasion for constrained consumers — a direct cost to the often-assumed benefit of aspiration. Firms and platforms should balance aspirational branding against conversion objectives, potentially segmenting exposures by consumer feasibility.
  • Policy/regulatory implications: algorithmic exposure that disproportionately shows unattainable luxury content to lower-income users may weaken their ability to act on recommendations; regulators concerned with fairness or consumer protection may need to examine exposure composition.

• Extensions & open questions relevant to AI economics

  • Heterogeneous susceptibility: allowing α to vary across users or be endogenous to observable features (income, past behavior) — important for personalized recommendation systems.
  • Strategic influencers/platforms: modeling q as an objective-driven choice by platforms or advertisers (e.g., maximizing long-run engagement vs. immediate sales).
  • Multiple influencers and networked exposure: interactions among many sources with overlapping but different menus.
  • Dynamic learning and belief formation: how repeated exposure to aspirational content affects long-run preferences, investments, or aspirations.
  • Relaxing Luce/IIA: exploring correlated stochastic choice or attention-based models to see how predictions change for AI recommendation contexts.

Limitations to bear in mind - AWLM assumes Luce (independence of irrelevant alternatives) for the idiosyncratic baseline and an exogenous influencer distribution q; empirical departures from these assumptions will require model extensions. - The model abstracts from strategic design of q and from dynamics of changing feasibility or wealth; its welfare implications depend on such extensions.

Bottom line: AWLM formalizes how exposure to infeasible (aspirational) alternatives can systematically weaken influence over feasible choices, gives a clean microfoundation and axiomatic basis, and supplies identification/estimation tools that are directly relevant for economists studying platform design, recommender systems, aspirational marketing, and measurement of preferences in AI-mediated environments.