Abstract
May [18] developed an algebraic choice model of pairwise preference comparison in which subjects respond precisely to ordinal information on attributes of comparison. This study considers a probabilistic choice model variation of May's model, in which subjects respond with various degrees of precision in comparison to May's model. This precision can be viewed as an indirect measure of the subject's level of perception of the attributes of comparison. The purpose of the study is to examine the expected likelihood with which subjects will have transitive responses, as the degree of precision is varied. Closed form representations are obtained for the expected likelihood of transitivity for three alternatives for each different level of precision. Results indicate that a relatively small change in this precision can lead to substantial changes in the expected likelihood of transitivity.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
M. Bar-Hillel and A. Margalit, How vicious are cycles of intransitive choice?, Theory and Decision 24(1988)119–145.
G.M. Becker and C.G. McClintock, Value: Behavioral decision theory, Ann. Rev. Psychol. 18(1967) 239–286.
S. Berg, A note on plurality distortion in large committees, Eur. J. Political Econ. 1(1985)271–284.
S. Berg and B. Bjurult, A note on the paradox of voting: Anonymous preference profiles and May's formula, Public Choice 40(1983)307–316.
J.R. Bettman,An Information Processing Theory of Consumer Choice (Addison-Wesley, 1979).
T. Bezembinder and P. van Acker, Intransitivity of individual and social choice, in:Similarity and Choice, ed. E.D. Lantermann and H. Feger (Hans Huber, Bern, 1980).
Condorcet, Marquis de,Essai sur l'Application de l'Analyse à la Probabilité des Decisions Rendues à la Pluralité de Voix, Paris (reprinted: Chelsea Press, New York, 1973).
W.V. Gehrlein, The expected probability of Condorcet's paradox, Econ. Lett. 7(1981)33–37.
W.V. Gehrlein, The probability of intransitivity of pairwise comparisons in individual preference, Math. Social Sci. 17(1989)67–75.
W.V. Gehrlein, Probability calculations for transitivity of simple majority rule with anonymous voters, Public Choice (1989), forthcoming.
W.V. Gehrlein, The expected likelihood of transitivity of preference, Psychometrika (1990), forthcoming.
W.V. Gehrlein and P.C. Fishburn, The probability of the paradox of voting: A computable solution, J. Econ. Theory 13(1976)14–25.
W.V. Gehrlein and P.C. Fishburn, Condorcet's paradox and anonymous preference profiles, Public Choice 26(1976)1–18.
K. Kuga and H. Nagatani, Voter antagonism and the paradox of voting, Econometrica 42(1974) 1045–1067.
D. Lepelley, Some results on the probability of electing the Condorcet loser, Paper presented at the European Public Choice Society Meeting, Noordwijkerhout, The Netherlands (1986).
D. Lepelley and B. Mbih, The proportion of coalitionally unstable situations under the plurality rule, Econ. Lett. 24(1987)311–316.
R.D. Luce and P. Suppes, Preference, utility, and subjective probability, in:Handbook of Mathematical Psychology, ed. R.D. Luce, R.R. Bush and E. Galanter (Wiley, New York, 1965).
K.O. May, Intransitivity, utility, and the aggregation of preference patterns, Econometrica 22(1954)1–13.
J.E. Russo and B.A. Dosher, Strategies for multiattribute binary choice, J. Exp. Psychol. 9(1983) 676–696.
S.M. Selby (ed.),Standard Mathematical Tables, 14th ed. (Chemical Rubber Co., Cleveland, OH, 1965), p. 390.
P. Wright and F. Barbour, Phased decision strategies: Sequels to an initial screening, in:Multiple Criteria Decision Making, ed. M.K. Starr and M. Zeleny (North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1977).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
This research was supported through a fellowship from the Center for Advanced Study of the University of Delaware. Helpful comments from Sven Berg on a draft version of this paper are gratefully acknowledged.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Gehrlein, W.V. The expected likelihood of transitivity for a probabilistic chooser. Ann Oper Res 23, 235–246 (1990). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02204848
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02204848