Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The expected likelihood of transitivity for a probabilistic chooser

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

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.

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

    Google Scholar 

  2. G.M. Becker and C.G. McClintock, Value: Behavioral decision theory, Ann. Rev. Psychol. 18(1967) 239–286.

    Google Scholar 

  3. S. Berg, A note on plurality distortion in large committees, Eur. J. Political Econ. 1(1985)271–284.

    Google Scholar 

  4. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  5. J.R. Bettman,An Information Processing Theory of Consumer Choice (Addison-Wesley, 1979).

  6. 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).

    Google Scholar 

  7. 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).

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  9. W.V. Gehrlein, The probability of intransitivity of pairwise comparisons in individual preference, Math. Social Sci. 17(1989)67–75.

    Google Scholar 

  10. W.V. Gehrlein, Probability calculations for transitivity of simple majority rule with anonymous voters, Public Choice (1989), forthcoming.

  11. W.V. Gehrlein, The expected likelihood of transitivity of preference, Psychometrika (1990), forthcoming.

  12. 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 

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

    Google Scholar 

  14. K. Kuga and H. Nagatani, Voter antagonism and the paradox of voting, Econometrica 42(1974) 1045–1067.

    Google Scholar 

  15. 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).

  16. D. Lepelley and B. Mbih, The proportion of coalitionally unstable situations under the plurality rule, Econ. Lett. 24(1987)311–316.

    Google Scholar 

  17. 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).

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  20. S.M. Selby (ed.),Standard Mathematical Tables, 14th ed. (Chemical Rubber Co., Cleveland, OH, 1965), p. 390.

    Google Scholar 

  21. 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).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Business Administration, University of Delaware, 19716, Newark, DE, USA

    William V. Gehrlein

Authors
  1. William V. Gehrlein
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

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

Reprints 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

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02204848

Keywords

Search

Navigation