The unexpected empirical consensus among consensus methods

Psychological Science

Volumn 18, Issue 7, 2007, Pages 629-635

  Regenwetter, Michel ^a   Kim, Aeri ^a   Kantor, Arthur ^a   Ho, Moon Ho R ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA CHAMPAIGN   (United States)

^b NANYANG TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY   (Singapore)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CONSENSUS; DECISION MAKING; EMPIRICAL RESEARCH; HEALTH CARE ORGANIZATION; HUMAN; PHYSIOLOGY; POLITICS; SOCIAL BEHAVIOR; STATISTICAL MODEL;

CHOICE BEHAVIOR; CONSENSUS; DECISION MAKING; EMPIRICAL RESEARCH; HUMANS; LINEAR MODELS; MODELS, STATISTICAL; POLITICS; SOCIAL BEHAVIOR; SOCIETIES, SCIENTIFIC;

EID: 34547341248     PISSN: 09567976     EISSN: 14679280     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01950.x     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. Arrow, K.J. (1951). Social choice and individual values. New York : Wiley.
2. Black, D. (1958). The theory of committees and elections. Cambridge, England : Cambridge University Press.
3. Chamberlin, J.R., Cohen, J.L. Coombs, C.H. (1984). Social choice observed: Five presidential elections of the American Psychological Association. The Journal of Politics, 46, 479 502.
4. Condorcet, M. (1785). Essai sur l'application de l'analyse à la probabilité des décisions rendues à la pluralité des voix [Essay on the application of the probabilistic analysis of majority vote decisions]. Paris : Imprimerie Royale.
5. Efron, B. Tibshirani, R.J. (1993). An introduction to the bootstrap. New York : Chapman & Hall.
6. Felsenthal, D.S. Machover, M. (1995). Who ought to be elected and who is actually elected - an empirical investigation of 92 elections under 3 procedures. Electoral Studies, 14, 143 169.
7. Gehrlein, W.V. Fishburn, P.C. (1976). Condorcet's paradox and anonymous preference profiles. Public Choice, 26, 1 18.
8. Hastie, R. Kameda, T. (2005). The robust beauty of majority rules in group decisions. Psychological Review, 112, 494 508.
9. Kuga, K. Nagatani, H. (1974). Voter antagonism and the paradox of voting. Econometrica, 42, 1045 1067.
10. Laslier, J.-F. (2003). Analysing a preference and approval profile. Social Choice and Welfare, 20, 229 242.
11. McLean, I. Urken, A. (Eds.) 1995). Classics of social choice. Ann Arbor : University of Michigan Press.
12. Mueller, D.C. (2003). Public choice III. Cambridge, England : Cambridge University Press.
13. Regenwetter, M. Grofman, B. (1998). Approval voting, Borda winners and Condorcet winners: Evidence from seven elections. Management Science, 44, 520 533.
14. Regenwetter, M., Grofman, B., Marley, A. Tsetlin, I. (2006). Behavioral social choice. Cambridge, England : Cambridge University Press.
15. Regenwetter, M., Ho, M.-H. Tsetlin, I. (in press). Sophisticated approval voting, ignorance priors and plurality heuristics: A behavioral social choice analysis in a Thurstonian framework. Psychological Review.
16. Regenwetter, M. Rykhlevskaia, E. (in press). A general concept of scoring rules: General definitions, statistical inference, and empirical illustrations. Social Choice and Welfare.
17. Regenwetter, M. Tsetlin, I. (2004). Approval voting and positional voting methods: Inference, relationship, examples. Social Choice and Welfare, 22, 539 566.
18. Riker, W.H. (1982). Liberalism against populism. San Francisco : W.H. Freeman.
19. Saari, D.G. (1999). Explaining all three-alternative voting outcomes. Journal of Economic Theory, 87, 313 355.
20. Saari, D.G. (2000a). Mathematical structure of voting paradoxes 1: Pairwise vote. Economic Theory, 15, 1 53.
21. Saari, D.G. (2000b). Mathematical structure of voting paradoxes 2: Positional voting. Economic Theory, 15, 55 101.
22. Saari, D.G. (2001). Decisions and elections: Explaining the unexpected. Cambridge, England : Cambridge University Press.
23. Sapiro, V., Rosenstone, S. Miller, W. (1998). American national election studies, 1948-1997. Ann Arbor, MI : Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research.
24. Sen, A.K. (1970). Collective choice and social welfare. San Francisco : Holden-Day.
25. Tversky, A. Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185, 1124 1131.