Skip to main content

Nontransitive preferences in decision theory

Journal of Risk and Uncertainty volume 4, pages 113–134 (1991)Cite this article

Abstract

Intransitive preferences have been a topic of curiosity, study, and debate over the past 40 years. Many economists and decision theorists insist on transitivity as the cornerstone of rational choice, and even in behavioral decision theory intransitivities are often attributed to faulty experiments, random or sloppy choices, poor judgment, or unexamined biases. But others see intransitive preferences as potential truths of reasoned comparisons and propose representations of preferences that accommodate intransitivities.

This article offers a partial survey of models for intransitive preferences in a variety of decisional contexts. These include economic consumer theory, multiattribute utility theory, game theory, preference between time streams, and decision making under risk and uncertainty. The survey is preceded by a discussion of issues that bear on the relevance and reasonableness of intransitivity.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

References

  • Allais, Maurice. (1953a). “Fondements d'une théorie positive des choix comportant un risque et critique des postulats et axiomes de l'école americaine”. Memoir III,Econométrie, CNRS, Vol. XL, Paris, 257–332.

  • Allais, Maurice. (1953b). “Le comportement de l'homme rationnel devant le risque: critique des postulats ex axiomes de l'école americaine”,Econometrica 21, 503–546.

    Google Scholar 

  • Allais, Maurice. (1979). “The So-called Allais Paradox and Rational Decisions under Uncertainty”, In M.Allais and O.Hagen (eds.),Expected Utility Hypotheses and the Allais Paradox. Dordrecht, Holland: Reidel, pp. 437–681.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arrow, Kenneth J. (1951).Social Choice and Individual Values. New York: Wiley. Second edition, 1963.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aumann, Robert J. (1962). “Utility Theory without the Completeness Axiom”,Econometrica 30, 445–462.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aumann, Robert J. (1964). “Utility Theory without the Completeness Axiom: A Correction”,Econometrica 32, 210–212.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bell, David. (1982). “Regret in Decision Making under Uncertainty”,Operations Research 30, 961–981.

    Google Scholar 

  • Block, H. D. and Jacob, Marschak. (1960). “Random Orderings and Stochastic Theories of Responses”, In I.Olkin et al. (eds.),Contributions to Probability and Statistics. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, pp. 97–132.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bostic, Raphael, R. J.Herrnstein, and R.Duncan Luce. (1988). “The Effect on the Preference-Reversal Phenomenon of Using Choice Indifferences”,Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 13, 193–212.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bouyssou, Denis. (1986). “Some Remarks on the Notion of Compensation in MCDM”,European Journal of Operational Research 26, 150–160.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, Rex V. (1989). “Toward a Prescriptive Science and Technology of Decision Aiding”,Annals of Operations Research 19, 467–483.

    Google Scholar 

  • Casey, Jeff T. (1990). “Reversal of the Preference Reversal Phenomenon”.Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Making

  • Chew SooHong. (1982). “A Mixture Set Axiomization of Weighted Utility Theory”, Discussion Paper 82–4, College of Business and Public Administration, University of Arizona, Tucson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chew SooHong. (1983). “A Generalization of the Quasilinear Mean with Applications to the Measurement of Income Inequality and Decision Theory Resolving the Allais Paradox”,Econometrica 51, 1065–1092.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chew SooHong. (1985). “From Strong Substitution to Very Weak Substitution: Mixture-monotone Utility Theory and Semi-weighted Utility Theory”, preprint, Department of Political Economy, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chew SooHong and Kenneth R.MacCrimmon. (1979). “Alpha-nu Choice Theory: A Generalization of Expected Utility Theory”, Working Paper 669, Faculty of Commerce and Business Administration, University of British Columbia, Vancouver.

    Google Scholar 

  • Churchman, C. West (1961).Prediction and Optimal Decision. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Condorcet, Marquis de. (1785). Essai sur l'application de l'analyse á la probabilité des décisions rendues á la pluralité des voix. Paris.

  • Cowan, Thomas and Peter C.Fishburn. (1988). “Foundations of Preference”, In G.Eberlein and H.Berghel (eds.),Essays in Honor of Werner Leinfellner. Theory and Decision Series. Dordrecht, Holland: Reidel, pp. 261–271.

    Google Scholar 

  • Croon, M. A. (1984). “The Axiomization of Additive Difference Models for Preference Judgments”, In E.Degreef and G.VanBuggenhaut (eds.),Trends in Mathematical Psychology. Amsterdam: North-Holland, pp. 193–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Debreu, Gerard. (1960). “Topological Methods in Cardinal Utility Theory”, In K. J.Arrow, S.Karlin, and P.Suppes (eds.),Mathematical Methods in the Social Sciences, 1959. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, pp. 16–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dekel, Eddie. (1986). “An Axiomatic Characterization of Preferences under Uncertainty: Weakening the Independence Axiom”,Journal of Economic Theory 40, 304–318.

    Google Scholar 

  • Diamond, Peter A. (1967). “Cardinal Welfare, Individualistic Ethics, and Interpersonal Comparison of Utility: Comment”,Journal of Political Economy 75, 765–766.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fishburn, Peter C. (1970a).Utility Theory for Decision Making. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fishburn, Peter C. (1970b). “Intransitive Indifference in Preference Theory: A Survey”,Operations Research 18, 207–228.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fishburn, Peter C. (1973a). “Binary Choice Probabilities: On the Varieties of Stochastic Transitivity”,Journal of Mathematical Psychology 10, 327–352.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fishburn, Peter C. (1973b).The Theory of Social Choice. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fishburn, Peter C. (1974). “Lexicographic Orders, Utilities and Decision Rules: A Survey”,Management Science 20, 1442–1471.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fishburn, Peter C. (1980). “Lexicographic Additive Differences”,Journal of Mathematical Psychology 21, 191–218.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fishburn, Peter C. (1982). “Nontransitive Measurable Utility”,Journal of Mathematical Psychology 26, 31–67.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fishburn, Peter C. (1983). “Transitive Measurable Utility”,Journal of Economic Theory 31, 293–317.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fishburn, Peter C. (1984a). “Probabilistic Social Choice Based on Simple Voting Comparisons”,Review of Economic Studies 51, 683–692.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fishburn, Peter C. (1984b). “Dominance in SSB Utility Theory”,Journal of Economic Theory 34, 130–148.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fishburn, Peter C. (1984c). “Multiattribute Nonlinear Utility Theory”,Management Science 30, 1301–1310.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fishburn, Peter C. (1985).Interval Orders and Interval Graphs. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fishburn, Peter C. (1987). “Reconsiderations in the Foundations of Decision under Uncertainty”,Economic Journal 97, 825–841.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fishburn, Peter C. (1988).Nonlinear Preference and Utility Theory. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fishburn, Peter C. (1989). “Continuous Nontransitive Additive Conjoint Measurement”, forthcoming inMathematical Social Sciences.

  • Fishburn, Peter C. (1990a). “Nontransitive Additive Conjoint Measurement”,Journal of Mathematical Psychology.

  • Fishburn, Peter C. (1990b). “Skew Symmetric Additive Utility with Finite States”,Mathematical Social Sciences 19, 103–115.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fishburn, Peter C. (1990c). “Additive Differences and Simple Preference Comparisons”,Journal of Mathematical Psychology.

  • Fishburn, Peter C. and Irving H.LaValle. (1987). “A Nonlinear, Nontransitive and Additive-probability Model for Decisions under Uncertainty”,Annals of Statistics 15, 830–844.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fishburn, Peter C. and Irving H.LaValle. (1988). “Context-dependent Choice with Nonlinear and Nontransitive Preferences”,Econometrica 56, 1221–1239.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fishburn, Peter C. and Bernard Monjardet. (1991). “Norbert Wiener on the Theory of Measurement (1914, 1915, 1921)”,Journal of Mathematical Psychology.

  • Fishburn, Peter C. and Yutaka Nakamura. (1991). “Nontransitive Measurable Utility with Constant Threshold”,Journal of Mathematical Psychology.

  • Fishburn, Peter C. and Philip D.Straffin. (1989). “Equity Considerations in Public Risks Evaluation”,Operations Research 37, 229–239.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flood, Merrill M. (1951–1952). “A Preference Experiment”, The Rand Corporation Papers P-256, P-258, and P-263, Santa Monica, CA.

  • Goldstein, William and Hillel J.Einhorn (1987). “Expression Theory and the Preference Reversal Phenomenon”,Psychological Review 94, 236–254.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hammond, Peter J. (1988). “Consequentialist Foundations for Expected Utility”,Theory and Decision 25, 25–78.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krantz, David H., R. DuncanLuce, Patrick, Suppes, and Amos, Tversky. (1971).Foundations of Measurement, Volume I. New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kreweras, Germain. (1961). “Sur une possibilité de rationaliser les intransitivités”,La Décision, CNRS, Paris, 27–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kreweras, Germain. (1965). “Aggregation of Preference Orderings”. In Saul Sternberg et al. (comp.),Mathematics and Social Sciences I. Paris: Mouton, pp. 73–79.

    Google Scholar 

  • LaValle, Irving H. (1990). “Small Worlds and Sure Things: Consequentialism by the Back Door”. In W. Edwards (ed.),Utility: Theories, Measurements, and Applications.

  • Loomes, Graham and Robert, Sugden. (1982). “Regret Theory: An Alternative Theory of Rational Choice under Uncertainty”,Economic Journal 92, 805–824.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loomes, Graham and Robert, Sugden. (1987). “Some Implications of a More General Form of Regret Theory”,Journal of Economic Theory 41, 270–287.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luce, R. Duncan. (1956). “Semiorders and a Theory of Utility Discrimination”,Econometrica 24, 178–191.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luce, R. Duncan. (1959).Individual Choice Behavior: A Theoretical Analysis. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luce, R. Duncan. (1978). “Lexicographic Tradeoff Structures”,Theory and Decision 9, 187–193.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luce, R. Duncan and Howard, Raiffa. (1957).Games and Decisions. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luce, R. Duncan and Patrick, Suppes. (1965). “Preference, Utility, and Subjective Probability”, In R. D.Luce, R. R.Bush, and E.Galanter (eds.),Handbook of Mathematical Psychology, III. New York: Wiley, pp. 249–410.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacCrimmon, Kenneth R. and Stig, Larsson. (1979). “Utility Theory: Axioms Versus ‘Paradoxes’”. In M.Allais and O.Hagen (eds.),Expected Utility Hypotheses and the Allais Paradox. Dordrecht, Holland: Reidel, pp. 333–409.

    Google Scholar 

  • Machina, Mark J. (1982). “‘Expected Utility’ Analysis without the Independence Axiom”,Econometrica 50, 277–323.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mas-Colell, Andreu. (1974). “An Equilibrium Existence Theorem without Complete or Transitive Preferences”,Journal of Mathematical Economics 1, 237–246.

    Google Scholar 

  • May, Kenneth O. (1954). “Intransitivity, Utility, and the Aggregation of Preference Patterns”,Econometrica 22, 1–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merrill, Samuel. (1988).Making Multicandidate Elections More Democratic. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morrison, H. W. (1962). “Intransitivity of Paired Comparison Choices”, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nakamura, Yutaka. (1985). “Weighted Linear Utility”, preprint, Department of Precision Engineering, Osaka University, Osaka, Japan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nakamura, Yutaka. (1990). “Bilinear Utility and a Threshold Structure for Nontransitive Preferences”,Mathematical Social Sciences 19, 1–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peleg, Bezalel. (1984).Game Theoretic Analysis of Voting in Committees. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raiffa, Howard. (1968).Decision Analysis: Introductory Lectures on Choice under Uncertainty. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ramsey, Frank P. (1931). “Truth and Probability”. InThe Foundations of Mathematics and Other Logical Essays. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, pp. 156–198. Reprinted in H. E. Kyburg and H. E. Smokler (eds.),Studies in Subjective Probability. New York: Wiley, 1964, pp. 61–92.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rapoport, Anatol. (1989).Decision Theory and Decision Behaviour. Dordrecht, Holland: Kluwer Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Savage, Leonard J. (1954).The Foundations of Statistics. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schkade, David A. and Eric J.Johnson. (1989). “Cognitive Processes in Preference Reversals”,Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 44, 203–231.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmeidler, David. (1989). “Subjective Probability and Expected Utility without Additivity”,Econometrica 57, 571–587.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slovic, Paul, Dale, Griffin, and Amos, Tversky. (1990). “Compatibility Effects in Judgment and Choice”. In R. M.Hogarth (ed.),Insights in Decision Making: Theory and Applications. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 5–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • SlovicPaul and SarahLichtenstein (1968). “The Relative Importance of Probabilities and Payoffs in Risktaking,”Journal of Experimental Psychology Monograph Supplement 78, part 2, 1–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sonnenschein, Hugo F. (1971). “Demand Theory without Transitive Preferences, with Applications to the Theory of Competitive Equilibrium.” In J. S.Chipman, L.Hurwicz, M. K.Richter, and H. F.Sonnenschein (eds.),Preferences, Utility, and Demand. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, pp. 215–223.

    Google Scholar 

  • SuppesPatrick, David H.Krantz, R. DucanLuce, and AmosTversky. (1989).Foundations of Measurement, Volume II. New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • TverskyAmos. (1969). “Intransitivity of Preferences,”Psychological Review 76, 31–48.

    Google Scholar 

  • TverskyAmos and DanielKahneman. (1986). “Rational Choice and the Framing of Decisions.” In R. M.Hogarth and M. W.Reder (eds.),Rational Choice. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 67–94.

    Google Scholar 

  • TverskyAmos, PaulSlovic, and DanielKahneman. (1990). “The Causes of Preference Reversal,”American Economic Review 80, 204–217.

    Google Scholar 

  • VindKarl. (1991). “Independent Preferences,”Journal of Mathematical Economics 20, 119–135.

    Google Scholar 

  • von, NeumannJohn and OskarMorganstern. (1944).Theory of Games and Economic Behavior. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Third edition, 1953.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wakker, Peter P. (1989).Additive Representations of Preferences. Dordrecht, Holland: Kluwer Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • WienerNorbert. (1914). “A Contribution to the Theory of Relative Position,”Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society 17, 441–449.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. AT&T Bell Laboratories, 07974, Murray Hill, New Jersey

    Peter C. Fishburn

Authors
  1. Peter C. Fishburn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Additional information

I thank Irving LaValle and Duncan Luce for valuable comments on a previous version of this article.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Fishburn, P.C. Nontransitive preferences in decision theory. J Risk Uncertainty 4, 113–134 (1991). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00056121

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00056121

Key words

  • nontransitive preferences
  • nonlinear utility
  • decision theory