Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Transitivity revisited

  • Published:
Annals of Operations Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

The debate about the assumption of transitivity turns upon the interpretation of certain real world experiences

Abstract

A survey is given of research on transitivity.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. P. Anand, Are the preference axioms really rational?, Theory and Decision 23(1987)189–214.

    Google Scholar 

  2. W.E. Armstrong, The determinateness of the utility function, Econ. J. 49(1939)453–467.

    Google Scholar 

  3. W.E. Armstrong, Uncertainty and the utility function, Econ. J. 58(1948)1–10.

    Google Scholar 

  4. W.E. Armstrong, A note on the theory of consumer's behaviour, Oxford Econ. Papers 2(1950)119–122.

    Google Scholar 

  5. K.J. Arrow,Social Choice and Individual Values (Wiley, New York, 1951).

    Google Scholar 

  6. K.J. Arrow, Rational choice functions and orderings, Economica 26(1959)121–127.

    Google Scholar 

  7. M. Bar-Hillel and A. Margalit, How vicious are cycles of intransitive choice?, Theory and Decision 24(1988)119–145.

    Google Scholar 

  8. R. Beals, D.H. Krantz and A. Tversky, The foundations of multidimensional scaling, Psychol. Rev. 75(1968)127–142.

    Google Scholar 

  9. J.P. Beaugrand, J. Caron and L. Comeau, Social organization of small heterosexual groups of green swordtails (Xiphophorus helleri, Pisces, Poeciliidae) under conditions of captivity, Behaviour 91(1984)24–60.

    Google Scholar 

  10. D.E. Bell, Regret in decision making under uncertainty, Oper. Res. 30(1982)961–981.

    Google Scholar 

  11. J.E. Berg, J.W. Dickhaut and J.R. O'Brien, Preference reversal and arbitrage, in:Research in Experimental Economics, Vol. 3, ed. V.L. Smith (JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, 1985), pp. 31–72.

    Google Scholar 

  12. G. Berkeley,A Treatise Concerning the Principles of Human Knowledge (Printed for Jacob Tonson, London, 1734).

  13. Th. Bezembinder, Circularity and consistency in paired comparisons, Brit. J. Math. Statist. Psychol. 34(1981)16–37.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Th. Bezembinder and P. Van Acker, The Ostrogorski paradox and its relation to nontransitive choice, J. Math. Sociol. 11(1985)131–158.

    Google Scholar 

  15. M. Black, Making intelligent choices: How useful is decision theory? Dialectica 39(1985)19–34.

    Google Scholar 

  16. J.C. Borda, Memoire sur les élections au scrutin,Mémoires de l'Académie Royale des Sciences (1781), pp. 657–665.

  17. J.M. Buchanan, Social choice, democracy, and free markets, J. Political Econ. 62(1954)114–123.

    Google Scholar 

  18. R.H. Burros, Axiomatic analysis of non-transitivity of preference and of indifference, Theory and Decision 5(1974)185–204.

    Google Scholar 

  19. M. Cain, Realism, feminism, methodology, and law, Int. J. Sociol. of Law 14(1986)255–267.

    Google Scholar 

  20. R. Carnap, The aim of inductive logic, in:Methodology and Philosophy of Science: Proc. 1960 Int. Congress, ed. E. Nagel, P. Suppes and A. Tarski (Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA, 1962), pp. 303–318.

    Google Scholar 

  21. R. Carnap, Replies and systematic expositions, in:The Philosophy of Rudolph Carnap, ed. P.A. Schilpp (Open Court, La Salle, IL, 1963), sect. 5.

    Google Scholar 

  22. J.S. Chipman, Stochastic choice and subjective probability, in:Decisions, Values and Groups, Vol. 1 (Pergamon Press, 1960), pp. 70–95.

  23. J.S. Chipman, Consumption theory without transitive indifference, in:Preferences, Utility and Demand, ed. J.S. Chipman, L. Hurwicz, M.K. Richter and H.F. Sonnenschein (Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, New York, 1971), pp. 224–253.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Marquis de Condorcet,Essai sur l'Application de l'Analyse à la Pluralité des Voix (Imprimerie royale, Paris, 1785).

    Google Scholar 

  25. C.H. Coombs, On the use of inconsistency of preference in psychological measurement, J. Exp. Psychol. 55(1958)1–7.

    Google Scholar 

  26. C.H. Coombs, A theory of data, Psychol. Rev. 67(1960)143–159.

    Google Scholar 

  27. C.H. Coombs,A Theory of Data (Wiley, New York, 1964).

    Google Scholar 

  28. L.G. Creary, Empiricism and rationality, Synthese 23(1971)234–265.

    Google Scholar 

  29. M.A. Croon, The axiomatization of additive difference models for preference judgments, in:Trends in Mathematical Psychology, ed. E. Degreef and J. Van Buggenhaut (North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1984).

    Google Scholar 

  30. M.R. D'Amato, D.P. Salmon, E. Loukas and A. Tomie, Symmetry and transitivity of conditional relations in monkeys (Cebus apella) and pigeons (Columba livia), J. Exp. Anal. Behavior 44(1985)35–47.

    Google Scholar 

  31. H. Davis and R. Perusse, Numerical competence in animals: Definitional issues, current evidence, and a new research agenda, Behavioral and Brain Sciences 11(1988)561–615.

    Google Scholar 

  32. C.L. Dodgson (Lewis Carroll),A Method of Taking Votes on More than Two Issues (Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1876); Reprinted in: D. Black,The Theory of Committees and Elections (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1958).

    Google Scholar 

  33. W. Edwards, The theory of decision making, Psychol. Bull. 51(1954)380–417.

    Google Scholar 

  34. W. Edwards, Behavioral decision theory, Ann. Rev. Psychol. 12(1961)473–498.

    Google Scholar 

  35. P.C. Fishburn, Intransitive indifference with unequal indifference intervals, J. Math. Psychol. 7(1970)144–149.

    Google Scholar 

  36. P.C. Fishburn, Intransitive indifference in preference theory: A survey, Oper. Res. 18(1970)207–228.

    Google Scholar 

  37. P.C. Fishburn, The irrationality of transitivity in social science, Behavioral Sci. 15(1970)119–123.

    Google Scholar 

  38. P.C. Fishburn, Binary choice probabilities: On the varieties of stochastic transitivity, J. Math. Psychol. 10(1973)327–352.

    Google Scholar 

  39. P.C. Fishburn, Lexicographic additive differences, J. Math. Psychol. 21(1980)191–218.

    Google Scholar 

  40. P.C. Fishburn, Nontransitive measurable utility, J. Math. Psychol. 26(1982)31–67.

    Google Scholar 

  41. P.C. Fishburn, dominance in SSB utility theory, J. Econ. Theory 34(1984)130–148.

    Google Scholar 

  42. P.C. Fishburn, SSB utility theory and decision-making under uncertainty, Math. Social Sci. 8(1984)253–285.

    Google Scholar 

  43. P.C. Fishburn and I.H. LaValle, A nonlinear, nontransitive and additive-probability model for decisions under uncertainty, Ann. Statist. 15(1987)830–844.

    Google Scholar 

  44. P.C. Fishburn and I.H. LaValle, Context-dependent choice with nonlinear and nontransitive preferences, Econometrica 56(1988)1221–1239.

    Google Scholar 

  45. C. Flament, Analyse pluridimensionnelle des structures hiérarchiques intransitives, Bull. du Centre d'Etudes et de Recherches Psychotechniques 7(1958)171–179.

    Google Scholar 

  46. M.M. Flood, A preference experiment, Reports P-256, P-257, P-258 and P-263, The RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, CA (1951/52).

    Google Scholar 

  47. M. Gardner,Time Travel and Other Mathematical Bewilderments (Freeman, San Francisco, 1988), pp. 55–69).

    Google Scholar 

  48. W.V. Gehrlein, The expected probability of Condorcet's paradox, Econ. Lett. 7(1981)33–37.

    Google Scholar 

  49. W.V. Gehrlein and P.C. Fishburn, The probability of the paradox of voting: A computable solution, J. Econ. Theory 13(1976)14–25.

    Google Scholar 

  50. W.V. Gehrlein and P.C. Fishburn, Condorcet's paradox and anonymous preference profiles, Public Choice 26(1976)1–18.

    Google Scholar 

  51. N. Georgescu-Roegen, The pure theory of consumer's behavior, Quart. J. Econ. 50(1936)545–593.

    Google Scholar 

  52. W.M. Goldstein and H.J. Einhorn, Expression theory and the preference reversal phenomena, Psychol. Rev. 94(1987)236–254.

    Google Scholar 

  53. N.T. Gridgeman, Significance and adjustment in paired comparisons, Biometrics 19(1963)213–228.

    Google Scholar 

  54. B.J. Griswold and R.D. Luce, Choice among uncertain outcomes: A test of a decomposition and two assumptions of transitivity, Amer. J. Psychol. 75(1962)35–44.

    Google Scholar 

  55. G.Th. Guilbaud, Les théories de l'intérêt général et le problème logique de l'agrégation, Economie appliquée 5(1952)501–584.

    Google Scholar 

  56. S. Halldén,On the Logic of Better (Gleerup, Lund, Sweden, 1957).

    Google Scholar 

  57. M.T. Hallinan and W.N. Kubitschek, The effects of individual and structural characteristics on intransitivity in social networks, Social Psychol. Quart. 51(1988)81–92.

    Google Scholar 

  58. B. Hansson, Fundamental axioms for preference relations, Synthese 18(1968)423–442.

    Google Scholar 

  59. B. Hansson, Choice structures and preference relations, Synthese 18(1968)443–458.

    Google Scholar 

  60. B. Hansson, Voting and group decision functions, Synthese 20(1969)526–536.

    Google Scholar 

  61. B. Hansson, Group preferences, Econometrica 37(1969)50–54.

    Google Scholar 

  62. A. Hederstierna, A remark on the connexion between procedure and value, Theory and Decision 18(1985)135–138.

    Google Scholar 

  63. H.S. Houthakker, On the logic of preference and choice, in:Contributions to Logic and Methodology in Honor of J.M. Bocheński, ed. A.-T. Tymieniecka (North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1965), pp. 193–207.

    Google Scholar 

  64. L. Johnson, The uses of the media: An interpretation of the significance of the mass media in the lives of young people, Discourse 4(1984)18–31.

    Google Scholar 

  65. D. Kahneman and A. Tversky, Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk, Econometrica 47(1979)263–291.

    Google Scholar 

  66. M.C. Kemp, Arrow's general possibility theorem, Rev. Econ. Studies 21(1953/54)240–243.

    Google Scholar 

  67. M.G. Kendall,Rank Correlation Methods (Charles Griffin, London, 1948).

    Google Scholar 

  68. D.H. Krantz, The scaling of small and large color differences, Doctoral dissertation, University of Pennsylvania (1964), unpublished.

  69. G. Kreweras, Sur une possibilité de rationaliser les intransitivités, in:La Décision, Colloque International du CNRS, Paris (1961), pp. 27–32.

  70. G. Kreweras, Aggregation of preference orderings, in:Mathematics and Social Sciences, ed. S. Sternberg et al. (Mouton, Paris, 1965), pp. 73–79.

    Google Scholar 

  71. H.R. Lindman and J. Lyons, Stimulus complexity and choice inconsistency among gambles, Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 21(1978)146–159.

    Google Scholar 

  72. R. Lipkens, P.F. Kop and W. Matthijs, A test of symmetry and transitivity in the conditional discrimination performances of pigeons, J. Exp. Anal. of Behavior 49(1988)395–409.

    Google Scholar 

  73. G. Loomes and R. Sugden, Regret theory: An alternative theory of rational choice under uncertainty, Econ. J. 92(1982)805–824.

    Google Scholar 

  74. G. Loomes and R. Sugden, Some implications of a more general form of regret theory, J. Econ. Theory 41(1987)270–287.

    Google Scholar 

  75. R.D. Luce, Semiorders and a theory of utility discrimination, Econometrica 24(1956)178–191.

    Google Scholar 

  76. R.D. Luce, A probabilistic theory of utility, Econometrica 26(1958)193–224.

    Google Scholar 

  77. R.D. Luce,Individual Choice Behavior (Wiley, New York, 1959).

    Google Scholar 

  78. K.R. MacCrimmon, Descriptive and normative implications of the decision-theory postulates, in:Risk and Uncertainty, ed. K. Borch and J. Mossin (St. Martins Press, New York, 1968), pp. 3–32.

    Google Scholar 

  79. K.R. MacCrimmon and S. Larsson, Utility theory: Axioms versus “paradoxes”, in:Expected Utility Hypotheses and the Allais Paradox, ed. M. Allais and O. Hagen (Reidel, Dordrecht, 1979), pp. 333–409.

    Google Scholar 

  80. J. Marschak, Binary-choice constraints and random utility indicators, in:Mathematical Methods in the Social Sciences, ed. K.J. Arrow, S. Karlin and P. Suppes (Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA, 1960), pp. 312–329.

    Google Scholar 

  81. K.O. May, A set of independent necessary and sufficient conditions for simple majority decision, Econometrica 20(1952)680–684.

    Google Scholar 

  82. K.O. May, Intransitivity, utility, and the aggregation of preference patterns, Econometrica 22(1954)1–13.

    Google Scholar 

  83. W.S. McCulloch, A heterarchy of values determined by the topology of nervous nets, Bull. Math. Biophys. 7(1945)89–93.

    Google Scholar 

  84. K.D. McIntire, J. Cleary and T. Thompson, Conditional relations by monkeys: Reflexivity, symmetry and transitivity, J. Exp. Anal. Behavior 47(1987)279–285.

    Google Scholar 

  85. A.C. Michalos, Postulates of rational preference, Philosophy of Science 34(1967)18–22.

    Google Scholar 

  86. H. Montgomery, A study of intransitive preferences using a think aloud procedure, in:Decision Making and Chance in Human Affairs, ed. H. Jungermann and G. de Zeeuw (Reidel, Dordrecht, 1977).

    Google Scholar 

  87. H.W. Morrison, Intransitivity of paired comparison choices, Doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan (1962), unpublished.

  88. H. Moulin, From social welfare ordering to acyclic aggregation of preferences, Math. Social Sci. 9(1985)1–17.

    Google Scholar 

  89. E.J. Nanson, Methods of elections, Trans. Proc. Roy. Soc. Victoria 19(1882)197–240.

    Google Scholar 

  90. D.J. Navarick and E. Fantino, Stochastic transitivity and unidimensional behavior theories, Psychol. Rev. 81(1974)426–441.

    Google Scholar 

  91. J. von Neumann and O. Morgenstern,Theory of Games and Economic Behavior (Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1944).

    Google Scholar 

  92. M. Ostrogorski,La Démocratie et l'Organisation des Partis Politiques (Calmann-Lévy, Paris, 1903).

    Google Scholar 

  93. M. Ostrogorski,La Démocratie et les Partis Politiques (Calmann-Lévy, Paris, 1912).

    Google Scholar 

  94. D.W. Rae and H. Daudt, The Ostrogorski paradox: A particularity of compound majority decision, Eur. J. Political Res. 4(1976)391–398.

    Google Scholar 

  95. A. Rapoport, Outline of a probabilistic approach to animal sociology (I), Bull. Math. Biophys. 11(1949)183–196.

    Google Scholar 

  96. H. Reichenbach,Experience and Prediction (University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, 1938), Ch. 5.

    Google Scholar 

  97. H. Reichenbach,The Theory of Probability, 2nd ed. (University of California Press, CA, 1949), Chs. 9 and 11.

    Google Scholar 

  98. F. Restle, A metric and an ordering on sets, Psychometrica 24(1959)207–220.

    Google Scholar 

  99. F.S. Roberts, On nontransitive indifference, J. Math. Psychol. 7(1970)243–258.

    Google Scholar 

  100. F.S. Roberts, Homogeneous families of semiorders and the theory of probabilistic consistency, J. Math. Psychol. 8(1971)248–263.

    Google Scholar 

  101. J. Rushen, Aversion of sheep for handling treatments: Paired-choice studies, Appl. Animal Behaviour Sci. 16(1986)363–370.

    Google Scholar 

  102. J.E. Russo and B.A. Dosher, Strategies for multiattribute binary choice, J. Exp. Psychol., Learning, Memory, and Cognition 9(1983)676–696.

    Google Scholar 

  103. L.J. Savage, The theory of statistical decision, J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. 46(1951)55–67.

    Google Scholar 

  104. R.N. Shepard, Circularity in judgments of relative pitch, J. Acoustical Soc. Amer. 36(1964)2346–2353.

    Google Scholar 

  105. H.F. Sonnenschein, Demand theory without transitive preferences, with applications to the theory of compatitive equilibrium, in:Preference, Utility and Demand, ed. J.S. Chipman, L. Hurwicz, M.K. Richter and H.F. Sonnenschein (Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, New York, 1971), pp. 215–223.

    Google Scholar 

  106. L.L. Thurstone, A law of comparative judgment, Psychol. Rev. 34(1927)273–286.

    Google Scholar 

  107. L.L. Thurstone, Psychophysical analysis, Amer. J. Psychol. 38(1927)368–389.

    Google Scholar 

  108. G. Tullock, The irrationality of intransivity, Oxford Economic Papers 16(1964)401–406.

    Google Scholar 

  109. A. Tversky, Intransitivity of preference, Psychol. Rev. 76(1969)31–48.

    Google Scholar 

  110. A. Tversky and D. Kahnemann, The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice, Science 211(1981)453–458.

    Google Scholar 

  111. A. Tversky and J.E. Russo, Substitutability and similarity in binary choices, J. Math. Psychol. 6(1969)1–12.

    Google Scholar 

  112. L. Valadares Tavares, Proposition d'un système relationnel de préférences et développement d'une méthode interactive utilisant le modèle TRIDENT, Paper presented at the 22nd Meeting of the European Working Group on L'Aide à la Décision Multicritère, Chania, Greece (1985).

  113. P. Van Acker,Models for Intransitive Choice (Dynaprint, Brussels, 1977).

    Google Scholar 

  114. Ph. Vincke, (P, Q, I)-preference structures, in:Springer Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems, No. 301, ed. Kacprzyk and M. Roubens (Springer-Verlag, 1988), pp. 72–82.

  115. C. Wagner, Anscombe's paradox and the rule of three-fourth, Theory and Decision 15(1983)303–308.

    Google Scholar 

  116. G.H. von Wright,The Logic of Preference (Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh 1963).

    Google Scholar 

  117. R.E. Quandt, A probabilistic theory of consumer behavior, Quart. J. Econ. 70(1956)507–536.

    Google Scholar 

  118. G.H. Haines and B.T. Ratchford, A theory of how intransitive consumers make decisions, J. Econ. Psychol. 8(1987)273–298.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centre for Statistics and Operational Research, Free University of Brussels, 1050, Brussels, Belgium

    P. Van Acker

Authors
  1. P. Van Acker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Van Acker, P. Transitivity revisited. Ann Oper Res 23, 1–35 (1990). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02204837

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02204837

Search

Navigation