Transitivity of Preferences

Psychological Review

Volumn 118, Issue 1, 2011, Pages 42-56

  Regenwetter, Michel ^a   Dana, Jason ^b   Davis Stober, Clintin P ^c  

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

^b UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI   (United States)

Author keywords

Rationality; Stochastic transitivity; Transitivity; Triangle inequality; Utility theory

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; DECISION MAKING; FEMALE; HUMAN; MALE; PSYCHOLOGICAL MODEL; STATISTICS; UNITED STATES;

CHOICE BEHAVIOR; DECISION MAKING; FEMALE; HUMANS; ILLINOIS; MALE; MODELS, PSYCHOLOGICAL; STOCHASTIC PROCESSES;

EID: 79251488168     PISSN: 0033295X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1037/a0021150     Document Type: Article

References (100)

1. Bar-Hillel M., Margalit A. How vicious are cycles of intransitive preference?. Theory and Decision 1988, 24:119-145.
2. Bateson M. Context-dependent foraging choices in risk-sensitive starlings. Animal Behaviour 2002, 64:251-260.
3. Birnbaum M.H. Causes of Allais common consequence paradoxes: An experimental dissection. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 2004, 48:87-106.
4. Birnbaum M.H., Gutierrez R. Testing for intransitivity of preferences predicted by a lexicographic semiorder. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 2007, 104:96-112.
5. Birnbaum M.H., Patton J.N., Lott M.K. Evidence against rank-dependent utility theories: Tests of cumulative independence, interval independence, stochastic dominance, and transitivity. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 1999, 77:44-83.
6. Block H.D., Marschak J. Random orderings and stochastic theories of responses. Contributions to probability and statistics 1960, 97-132. Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA. I. Olkin, S. Ghurye, H. Hoeffding, W. Madow, H. Mann (Eds.).
7. Böckenholt U. Loglinear representation for multivariate choice data. Mathematical Social Sciences 1992, 23:235-250.
8. Böckenholt U. Thurstonian representation for partial ranking data. British Journal of Mathematical & Statistical Psychology 1992, 45:31-49.
9. Bolotashvili G., Kovalev M., Girlich E. New facets of the linear ordering polytope. SIAM Journal on Discrete Mathematics 1999, 12:326-336.
10. Bouyssou D., Pirlot M. Nontransitive decomposable conjoint measurement. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 2002, 46:677-703.
11. Bradbury H., Moscato M. Development of intransitivity of preference: Novelty and linear regularity. Journal of Genetic Psychology 1982, 140:265-281.
12. Bradbury H., Nelson T. Transitivity and the patterns of children's preferences. Developmental Psychology 1974, 10:55-64.
13. Brandstätter E., Gigerenzer G., Hertwig R. The priority heuristic: Making choices without trade-offs. Psychological Review 2006, 113:409-432.
14. Budescu D.V., Weiss W. Reflection of transitive and intransitive preferences: A test of prospect theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 1987, 39:184-202.
15. Busemeyer J.R., Townsend J.T. Decision field theory: A dynamic-cognitive approach to decision making in an uncertain environment. Psychological Review 1993, 100:432-459.
16. Carbone E., Hey J.D. Which error story is best?. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 2000, 20:161-176.
17. Chen Y.-J., Corter J.E. When mixed options are preferred to mutiple-trial decisions. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 2006, 19:17-42.
18. Cohen M., Falmagne J.-C. Random utility representation of binary choice probabilities: A new class of necessary conditions. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 1990, 34:88-94.
19. Colman A. Cooperation, psychological game theory, and limitations of rationality in social interaction. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 2003, 26:139-198.
20. Condorcet M. 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] 1785, Imprimerie Royale, Paris, France.
21. Corstjens M., Gautschi D. Conjoint analysis: A comparative analysis of specification tests for the utility function. Management Science 1983, 29:1393-1413.
22. Davis-Stober C.P. Analysis of multinomial models under inequality constraints: Applications to measurement theory. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 2009, 53:1-13.
23. Erev I. Signal detection by human observers: A cutoff reinforcement learning model of categorization decisions under uncertainty. Psychological Review 1998, 105:280-298.
24. Fiorini S. Determining the automorphism group of the linear ordering polytope. Discrete Applied Mathematics 2001, 112:121-128.
25. Fishburn P.C. Implicit mean value and certainty equivalence. Econometrica 1986, 54:1197-1205.
26. Fishburn P.C. Induced binary probabilities and the linear ordering polytope: A status report. Mathematical Social Sciences 1992, 23:67-80.
27. Fishburn P.C., Falmagne J.-C. Binary choice probabilities and rankings. Economic Letters 1989, 31:113-117.
28. Follman D. A simple multivariate test for one-sided alternatives. Journal of the American Statistical Association 1996, 91:854-861.
29. Gilboa I. A necessary but insufficient condition for the stochastic binary choice problem. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 1990, 34:371-392.
30. Gonzalez-Vallejo C. Making trade-offs: A probabilistic and context-sensitive model of choice behavior. Psychological Review 2002, 109:137-154.
31. Gonzalez-Vallejo C., Bonazzi A., Shapiro A.J. Effects of vague probabilities and of vague payoffs on preference: A model comparison analysis. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 1996, 40:130-140.
32. Grötschel M., Jünger M., Reinelt G. Facets of the linear ordering polytope. Mathematical Programming 1985, 33:43-60.
33. Halff H.M. Choice theories for differentially comparable alternatives. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 1976, 14:244-246.
34. Harless D.W., Camerer C.F. The predictive value of generalized expected utility theories. Econometrica 1994, 62:1251-1289.
35. Hays W. Statistics 1988, Holt, Rinehart & Winston, New York, NY. 4th ed.
36. Hey J.D. Experimental investigations of errors in decision making under risk. European Economic Review 1995, 39:633-640.
37. Hey J.D. Why we should not be silent about noise. Experimental Economics 2005, 8:325-345.
38. Hey J.D., Orme C. Investigating generalizations of expected utility theory using experimental data. Econometrica 1994, 62:1291-1326.
39. Heyer D., Niederée R. Elements of a model-theoretic framework for probabilistic measurement. Mathematical psychology in progress 1989, 99-112. Springer, Berlin, Germany. E.E. Roskam (Ed.).
40. Heyer D., Niederée R. Generalizing the concept of binary choice systems induced by rankings: One way of probabilizing deterministic measurement structures. Mathematical Social Sciences 1992, 23:31-44.
41. Ho M.-H., Regenwetter M., Niederée R., Heyer D. An alternative perspective on von Winterfeldt et al.'s (1997) test of consequence monotonicity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 2005, 31:365-373.
42. Humphrey S. Non-transitive choice: Event-splitting effects of framing effects?. Economica 2001, 68:77-96.
43. Iverson G.J. An essay on inequalities and order-restricted inference. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 2006, 50:215-219.
44. Iverson G.J., Falmagne J.-C. Statistical issues in measurement. Mathematical Social Sciences 1985, 10:131-153.
45. Johnson-Laird P., Shafir E. The interaction between reasoning and decision making: An introduction. Cognition 1993, 49:1-9.
46. Kahneman D., Tversky A. Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica 1979, 47:263-291.
47. Karabatsos G. Bayesian nonparametric model selection and model testing. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 2006, 50:123-148.
48. Kirkpatrick M., Rand A., Ryan M. Mate choice rules in animals. Animal Behaviour 2006, 71:1215-1225.
49. Kivetz R., Simonson I. The effects of incomplete information on consumer choice. Journal of Marketing Research 2000, 37:427-448.
50. Klaška J. Transitivity and partial order. Mathematica Bohemica 1997, 122:75-82.
51. Koppen M. Random utility representation of binary choice probabilities: Critical graphs yielding critical necessary conditions. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 1995, 39:21-39.
52. Kramer K.M., Budescu D.V. Exploring Ellsberg's paradox in vague-vague cases. Experimental business research 2005, 3:131-154. Kluwer Academic, Norwell, MA. R. Zwick, A. Rapoport (Eds.).
53. Lee L., Amir O., Ariely D. In search of homo economicus: Cognitive noise and the role of emotion in preference consistency. Journal of Consumer Research 2009, 36:173-187.
54. Li S. A behavioral choice model when computational ability matters. Applied Intelligence 2004, 20:147-163.
55. Loomes G. Modelling the stochastic component of behaviour in epxeriments: Some issues for the interpretation of the data. Experimental Economics 2005, 8:301-323.
56. Loomes G., Moffatt P.G., Sugden R. A microeconometric test of alternative stochastic theories of risky choice. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 2002, 24:103-130.
57. Loomes G., Starmer C., Sugden R. Preference reversal: Information-processing effect or rational nontransitive choice?. Economic Journal 1989, 9:140-151.
58. Loomes G., Starmer C., Sugden R. Observing violations of transitivity by experimental methods. Econometrica 1991, 59:425-439.
59. Loomes G., Sugden R. Incorporating a stochastic element into decision theories. European Economic Review 1995, 39:641-648.
60. Loomes G., Sugden R. Testing different stochastic specifications of risky choice. Economica 1998, 65:581-598.
61. Loomes G., Taylor C. Non-transitive preferences over gains and losses. Economic Journal 1992, 102:357-365.
62. Luce R.D. Rational versus plausible accounting equivalences in preference judgments. Psychological Science 1990, 1:225-234.
63. Luce R.D. Four tensions concerning mathematical modeling in psychology. Annual Review of Psychology 1995, 46:1-26.
64. Luce R.D. Several unresolved conceptual problems of mathematical psychology. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 1997, 41:79-87.
65. Luce R.D. Utility of gains and losses: Measurement-theoretical and experimental approaches 2000, Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ.
66. Luce R.D. Measurement analogies: Comparisons of behavioral and physical measures. Psychometrika 2005, 70:227-251.
67. Luce R.D., Suppes P. Preference, utility and subjective probability. Handbook of mathematical psychology 1965, 3:249-410. Wiley, New York, NY. R.D. Luce, R.R. Bush, E. Galanter (Eds.).
68. Marschak J. Binary-choice constraints and random utility indicators. Proceedings of the first Stanford Symposium on Mathematical Methods in the Social Sciences, 1959 1960, 312-329. Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA. K.J. Arrow, S. Karlin, P. Suppes (Eds.).
69. May K. Intransitivity, utility, and the aggregation of preference patterns. Econometrica 1954, 22:1-13.
70. McNamara T., Diwadkar V. Symmetry and asymmetry of human spatial memory. Cognitive Psychology 1997, 34:160-190.
71. Mellers B.A., Biagini K. Similarity and choice. Psychological Review 1994, 101:505-518.
72. Mellers B.A., Chang S., Birnbaum M., Ordonez L. Preferences, prices, and ratings in risky decision making. Journal of Experimental Psychology 1992, 18:347-361.
73. Montgomery H. A study of intransitive preferences using a think aloud procedure. Decision-making and change in human affairs 1977, 347-362. Reidel, Dordrecht, the Netherlands. H. Jungerman, G. de Zeeuw (Eds.).
74. Morrison H.W. Testable conditions for triads of paired comparison choices. Psychometrika 1963, 28:369-390.
75. Myung J., Karabatsos G., Iverson G. A Bayesian approach to testing decision making axioms. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 2005, 49:205-225.
76. Niederée R., Heyer D. Generalized random utility models and the representational theory of measurement: A conceptual link. Choice, decision and measurement: Essays in honor of R. Duncan Luce 1997, 155-189. Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ. A.A.J. Marley (Ed.).
77. Peterson G., Brown T. Economic valuation by the method of paired comparison, with emphasis on evaluation of the transitivity axiom. Land Economics 1998, 74:240-261.
78. Ranyard R.H. Risky decisions which violate transitivity and double cancellation. Acta Psychologica 1977, 41:449-459.
79. Regenwetter M. Random utility representations of finite m-ary relations. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 1996, 40:219-234.
80. Regenwetter M., Dana J., Davis-Stober C.P. Testing transitivity of preferences on two-alternative forced choice data. Frontiers in Quantitative Psychology and Measurement 2010, Advance online publication. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2010.00148.
81. Regenwetter M., Davis-Stober C.P. There are many models of transitive preference: A tutorial review and current perspective. Decision modeling and behavior in uncertain and complex environments 2008, 99-124. Springer, New York, NY. T. Kugler, J.C. Smith, T. Connolly, Y.-J. Son (Eds.).
82. Regenwetter, M., & Davis-Stober, C. P. (2010). Choice variability versus structural inconsistency of preferences. Unpublished manuscript.
83. Regenwetter M., Marley A.A.J. Random relations, random utilities, and random functions. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 2001, 45:864-912.
84. Riechard D. Intransitivity of paired comparisons related to gender and community socioeconomic setting. Journal of Experimental Education 1991, 59:197-205.
85. Roe R.M., Busemeyer J.R., Townsend J.T. Multialternative decision field theory: A dynamic connectionist model of decision making. Psychological Review 2001, 108:370-392.
86. Roelofsma P., Read D. Intransitive intertemporal choice. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 2000, 13:161-177.
87. Savage L.J. The foundations of statistics 1954, Wiley, New York, NY.
88. Schuck-Paim C., Kacelnik A. Rationality in risk-sensitive foraging choices by starlings. Animal Behaviour 2002, 64:869-879.
89. Shafir S. Intransitivity of preferences in honey bees: Support for " comparative" evaluation of foraging options. Animal Behaviour 1994, 48:55-67.
90. Sopher B., Gigliotti G. Intransitive cycles: Rational choice or random error? An answer based on estimation of error rates with experimental data. Theory and Decision 1993, 35:311-336.
91. Sopher B., Narramore J.M. Stochastic choice and consistency in decision making under risk: An experimental study. Theory and Decision 2000, 48:323-350.
92. Starmer C. Cycling with rules of thumb: An experimental test for a new form of non-transitive behavior. Theory and Decision 1999, 46:139-158.
93. Starmer C., Sugden R. Testing alternative explanations of cyclical choices. Economica 1998, 65:347-361.
94. Suck R. Geometric and combinatorial properties of the polytope of binary choice probabilities. Mathematical Social Sciences 1992, 23:81-102.
95. Treadwell J., Kearney D., Davila M. Health profile preferences of Hepatitis C patients. Digestive Diseases and Sciences 2000, 45:345-350.
96. Tsai R.-C., Böckenholt U. Modelling intransitive preferences: A random-effects approach. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 2006, 50:1-14.
97. Tsetlin I., Regenwetter M., Grofman B. The impartial culture maximizes the probability of majority cycles. Social Choice and Welfare 2003, 21:387-398.
98. Tversky A. Intransitivity of preferences. Psychological Review 1969, 76:31-48.
99. von Neumann J., Morgenstern O. Theory of games and economic behavior 1947, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
100. Waite T.A. Intransitive preferences in hoarding gray jays. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 2001, 50:116-121.