Testing transitivity of preferences on two-alternative forced choice data

Frontiers in Psychology

Volumn 1, Issue DEC, 2010, Pages

  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

Axiom testing; Random utility; Rationalizability; Stochastic transitivity; Transitivity; Triangle inequality; Utility theory

Indexed keywords

EID: 84867054083     PISSN: None     EISSN: 16641078     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2010.00148     Document Type: Article

References (91)

1. Bateson, M. (2002). Context-dependent foraging choices in risk-sensitive star-lings. Anim. Behav. 64, 251-260.
2. Ben-Akiva, M. B., and Lerman, S. R. (1985). Discrete Choice Analysis: Theory and Applications to Travel Demand. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
3. Birnbaum, M. H., Patton, J. N., and Lott, M. K. (1999). Evidence against rank-dependent utility theories: tests of cumulative independence, interval independence, stochastic dominance, and transitivity. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 77, 44-83.
4. Birnbaum, M., and Gutierrez, R. (2007). Testing for intransitivity of prefer-ences predicted by a lexicographic semiorder. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 104, 96-112.
5. Birnbaum, M., and LaCroix, A. (2008). Dimension integration: testing mod-els without trade-offs. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 105, 122-133.
6. Birnbaum, M., and Schmidt, U. (2008). An experimental investigation of violations of transitivity in choice under uncer-tainty. J. Risk Uncertain. 37, 77-91.
7. Blavatskyy, P., and Pogrebna, G. (2009). Models of stochastic choice and deci-sion theories: why both are impor-tant for analyzing decisions. J. Appl. Econom. 25, 963-986.
8. Block, H. D., and Marschak, J. (1960). "Random orderings and stochastic theories of responses," in Contributions to Probability and Statistics, eds I. Olkin, S. Ghurye, H. Hoeffding, W. Madow, and H. Mann (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press), 97-132.
9. Böckenholt, U. (2006). Thurstonian-based analyses: past, present, and future utili-ties. Psychometrika, 71, 615-629.
10. Bolotashvili, G., Kovalev, M., and Girlich, E. (1999). New facets of the linear ordering polytope. SIAM J. Discrete Math. 12, 326-336.
11. Bradbury, H., and Moscato, M. (1982). Development of intransitivity of pref-erence: novelty and linear regularity. J. Genet. Psychol. 140, 265-281.
12. Bradbury, H., and Nelson, T. (1974). Transitivity and the patterns of children's preferences. Dev. Psychol. 10, 55-64.
13. Brandstätter, E., Gigerenzer, G., and Hertwig, R. (2006). The priority heu-ristic: making choices without trade-offs. Psychol. Rev. 113, 409-432.
14. Budescu, D. V., and Weiss, W. (1987). Reflection of transitive and intransi-tive preferences-a test of prospect-theory. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 39, 184-202.
15. Carbone, E., and Hey, J. D. (2000). Which error story is best? J. Risk Uncertain. 20, 161-176.
16. Chen, Y.-J., and Corter, J. E. (2006). When mixed options are preferred to multiple-trial decisions. J. Behav. Decis. Mak. 19, 17-42.
17. Cohen, M., and Falmagne, J.-C. (1990). Random utility representation of binary choice probabilities: a new class of necessary conditions. J. Math. Psychol. 34, 88-94.
18. Condorcet, M. (1785). Essai sur l'application de l'analyse à la probabil-ité des décisions rendues à la pluralité des voix (Essai on the application of the probabilistic analysis of majority vote decisions). Paris: Imprimerie Royale.
19. Corstjens, M., and Gautschi, D. (1983). Conjoint analysis: a comparative analysis of specification tests for the utility function. Manage. Sci. 29, 1393-1413.
20. Davis-Stober, C. P. (2009). Analysis of multinomial models under inequal-ity constraints: applications to meas-urement theory. J. Math. Psychol. 53, 1-13.
21. Dulá, J., and Helgason, R. (1996). A new procedure for identifying the frame of the convex hull of a finite collection of points in multidimensional space. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 92, 352-367.
22. Fiorini, S. (2001). Determining the automorphism group of the linear ordering polytope. Discrete Appl. Math. 112, 121-128.
23. Fishburn, P. C., and Falmagne, J.-C. (1989). Binary choice probabilities and rank-ings. Econ. Lett. 31, 113-117.
24. Fishburn, P. C. (1970). Intransitive indif-ference in preference theory. J. Math. Psychol. 7, 207-228.
25. Fishburn, P. C. (1979). Utility Theory for Decision Making. Huntington, NY: R. E. Krieger.
26. Fishburn, P. C. (1985). Interval Orders and Interval Graphs. New York, NY: Wiley.
27. Fishburn, P. C. (1992). Induced binary probabilities and the linear ordering polytope: a status report. Math. Soc. Sci. 23, 67-80.
28. Gilboa, I. (1990). A necessary but insuf-ficient condition for the stochastic binary choice problem. J. Math. Psychol. 34, 371-392.
29. Gonzalez-Vallejo, C., Bonazzi, A., and Shapiro, A. J. (1996). Effects of vague probabilities and of vague payoffs on preference: a model compari-son analysis. J. Math. Psychol. 40, 130-140.
30. Grötschel, M., Jünger, M., and Reinelt, G. (1985). Facets of the linear order-ing polytope. Math. Program. 33, 43-60.
31. Harless, D. W., and Camerer, C. F. (1994). The predictive value of generalized expected utility theories. Econometrica 62, 1251-1289.
32. Heyer, D., and Niederée, R. (1989). "Elements of a model-theoretic frame-work for probabilistic measurement," in Mathematical Psychology in Progress, ed. E. E. Roskam (Berlin: Springer), 99-112.
33. Heyer, D., and Niederée, R. (1992). Generalizing the concept of binary choice systems induced by rankings: one way of probabilizing determinis-tic measurement structures. Math. Soc. Sci. 23, 31-44.
34. Hey, J. D., and Orme, C. (1994). Investigating generalizations of expected utility theory using experi-mental data. Econometrica 62, 1291-1326.
35. Hey, J. D. (1995). Experimental investiga-tions of errors in decision making under risk. Eur. Econ. Rev. 39, 633-640.
36. Hey, J. D. (2005). Why we should not be silent about noise. Exp. Econ. 8, 325-345.
37. Humphrey, S. (2001). Non-transitive choice: event-splitting effects of fram-ing effects? Economica, 68, 77-96.
38. Iverson, G. J., and Falmagne, J.-C. (1985). Statistical issues in measurement. Math. Soc. Sci. 10, 131-153.
39. Kivetz, R., and Simonson, I. (2000). The effects of incomplete information on consumer choice. J. Mark. Res. 37, 427-448.
40. Klaška, J. (1997). Transitivity and partial order. Math. Bohem. 122, 75-82.
41. Koppen, M. (1995). Random util-ity representation of binary choice probabilities: critical graphs yielding critical necessary conditions. J. Math. Psychol. 39, 21-39.
42. Kramer, K. M., and Budescu, D. V. (2005). "Exploring Ellsberg's paradox in vague-vague cases," in Experimental Business Research, Vol. III, eds R. Zwick and A. Rapoport (Norwell, MA/Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers), 131-154.
43. Krantz, D. H., Luce, R. D., Suppes, P., and Tversky, A. (1971). Foundations of Measurement, Vol. 1. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
44. Lee, L., Amir, O., and Ariely, D. (2009). In search of homo economicus: cogni-tive noise and the role of emotion in preference consistency. J. Consum. Res. 36, 173-187.
45. Li, S. (2004). A behavioral choice model when computational ability matters. Appl. Intell. 20, 147-163.
46. Loomes, G., Starmer, C., and Sugden, R. (1991). Observing violations of tran-sitivity by experimental methods. Econometrica 59, 425-439.
47. Loomes, G., and Sugden, R. (1982). Regret theory-an alternative theory of rational choice under uncertainty. Econ. J. 92, 805-824.
48. Loomes, G., and Sugden, R. (1995). Incorporating a stochastic element into decision theories. Eur. Econ. Rev. 39, 641-648.
49. Loomes, G., and Taylor, C. (1992). Non-transitive preferences over gains and losses. Econ. J. 102, 357-365.
50. Loomes, G. (2005). Modelling the sto-chastic component of behaviour in experiments: some issues for the interpretation of the data. Exp. Econ. 8, 301-323.
51. Luce, R. D., and Suppes, P. (1965). "Preference, utility and subjec-tive probability," in Handbook of Mathematical Psychology, Vol. III, eds R. D. Luce, R. R. Bush, and E. Galanter (New York: Wiley), 249-410.
52. Luce, R. D. (1956). Semiorders and a theory of utility discrimination. Econometrica 26, 178-191.
53. Luce, R. D. (1959). Individual Choice Behavior: A Theoretical Analysis. New York, NY: John Wiley.
54. Luce, R. D. (1995). Four tensions concern-ing mathematical modeling in psychol-ogy. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 46, 1-26.
55. Luce, R. D. (1997). Several unresolved conceptual problems of mathemati-cal psychology. J. Math. Psychol. 41, 79-87.
56. Manski, C. F., and McFadden, D. (eds). (1981). Structural Analysis of Discrete Data with Econometric Applications. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
57. Marschak, J. (1960). "Binary-choice constraints and random utility indi-cators," in Proceedings of the first Stanford Symposium on Mathematical Methods in the Social Sciences, 1959, eds K. J. Arrow, S. Karlin, and P. Suppes (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press), 312-329.
58. Maydeu-Olivares, A., and Hernández, A. (2007). Identification and small sample estimation of Thurstone's unrestricted model for paired com-parisons data. Multivariate Behav. Res. 42, 323-347.
59. May, K. (1954). Intransitivity, utility, and the aggregation of preference patterns. Econometrica 22, 1-13.
60. McFadden, D. (2001). Economic choices. Am. Econ. Rev. 91, 351-378 (Nobel Lecture).
61. McNamara, T., and Diwadkar, V. (1997). Symmetry and asymmetry of human spatial memory. Cogn. Psychol. 34, 160-190.
62. Mellers, B. A., and Biagini, K. (1994). Similarity and choice. Psychol. Rev. 101, 505-518.
63. Mellers, B. A., Chang, S., Birnbaum, M., and Ordonez, L. (1992). Preferences, prices, and ratings in risky deci-sion making. J. Exp. Psychol. 18, 347-361.
64. Montgomery, H. (1977). "A study of intransitive preferences using a think aloud procedure," in Decision-Making and Change in Human Affairs, eds H. Jungerman, and G. de Zeeuw (Dordrecht: D. Reidel), 347-362.
65. Morrison, H. W. (1963). Testable conditions for triads of paired com-parison choices. Psychometrika 28, 369-390.
66. Myung, J., Karabatsos, G., and Iverson, G. (2005). A Bayesian approach to test-ing decision making axioms. J. Math. Psychol. 49, 205-225.
67. Niederée, R., and Heyer, D. (1997). "Generalized random utility models and the representational theory of measurement: a conceptual link," in Choice, Decision and Measurement: Essays in Honor of R. Duncan Luce, ed. A. A. J. Marley (Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum), 155-189.
68. Peterson, G., and Brown, T. (1998). Economic valuation by the method of paired comparison, with emphasis on evaluation of the transitivity axiom. Land Econ. 74, 240-261.
69. Ranyard, R. H. (1977). Risky decisions which violate transitivity and dou-ble cancellation. Acta Psychol. 41, 449-459.
70. Regenwetter, M., Dana, J., and Davis-Stober, C. P. (2011). Transitivity of preferences. Psychol. Rev. (in press).
71. Regenwetter, M., and Marley, A. A. J. (2001). Random relations, random utilities, and random functions. J. Math. Psychol. 45, 864-912.
72. Regenwetter, M. (1996). Random utility representations of finite m-ary rela-tions. J. Math. Psychol. 40, 219-234.
73. Riechard, D. (1991). Intransitivity of paired comparisons related to gender and community socioeconomic set-ting. J. Exp. Educ. 59, 197-205.
74. Rieskamp, J., Busemeyer, J. R., and Mellers, B. A. (2006). Extending the bounds of rationality: evidence and theories of preferential choice. J. Econ. Lit. 44, 631-661.
75. Roberts, F. S. (1979). Measurement Theory. London: Addison-Wesley.
76. Roelofsma, P., and Read, D. (2000). Intransitive intertemporal choice. J. Behav. Decis. Mak. 13, 161-177.
77. Schuck-Paim, C., and Kacelnik, A. (2002). Rationality in risk-sensitive foraging choices by starlings. Anim. Behav. 64, 869-879.
78. Scott, H. (2006). Cumulative prospect theory's functional menagerie. J. Risk Uncertain. 32, 101-130.
79. Shafir, S. (1994). Intransitivity of pref-erences in honey bees: support for 'comparative' evaluation of foraging options. Anim. Behav. 48, 55-67.
80. Sopher, B., and Gigliotti, G. (1993). Intransitive cycles: rational choice or random error? An answer based on esti-mation of error rates with experimental data. Theory Decis. 35, 311-336.
81. Sopher, B., and Narramore, J. M. (2000). Stochastic choice and consistency in decision making under risk: an experimental study. Theory Decis. 48, 323-350.
82. Starmer, C. (1999). Cycling with rules of thumb: an experimental test for a new form of non-transitive behavior. Theory Decis. 46, 139-158.
83. Suck, R. (1992). Geometric and combi-natorial properties of the polytope of binary choice probabilities. Math. Soc. Sci. 23, 81-102.
84. Takane, Y. (1987). Analysis of covariance structures and probabilistic binary choice data. Commun. Cogn. 20, 45-62.
85. Train, K. (1986). Qualitative Choice Analysis. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
86. Treadwell, J., Kearney, D., and Davila, M. (2000). Health profile preferences of Hepatitis C patients. Dig. Dis. Sci. 45, 345-350.
87. Tsai, R.-C., and Böckenholt, U. (2006). Modelling intransitive preferences: a random-effects approach. J. Math. Psychol. 50, 1-14.
88. Tsai, R.-C. (2003). Remarks on the identifiability of Thurstonian paired comparison models under multi-ple judgment. Psychometrika 68, 361-372.
89. Tversky, A. (1969). Intransitivity of prefer-ences. Psychol. Rev. 76, 31-48.
90. Vapnik, V. (1995). The Nature of Statistical Learning Theory. New York, NY: Springer Verlag.
91. Waite, T. A. (2001). Intransitive prefer-ences in hoarding gray jays. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 50, 116-121.