Advertisement

An experimental investigation of violations of transitivity in choice under uncertainty

  • Michael H. BirnbaumEmail author
  • Ulrich Schmidt
Article

Abstract

Several models of decision-making imply systematic violations of transitivity of preference. Our experiments explored whether people show patterns of intransitivity predicted by regret theory and majority rule. To distinguish “true” violations from those produced by “error,” a model was fit in which each choice can have a different error rate and each person can have a different pattern of true preferences that need not be transitive. Error rate for a choice is estimated from preference reversals between repeated presentations of that same choice. Our results showed that very few people repeated intransitive patterns. We can retain the hypothesis that transitivity best describes the data of the vast majority of participants.

Keywords

Choice Decision making Errors Regret theory Transitivity 

JEL classification

C91 D81 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank the editor and two referees for very helpful comments. Support was received from National Science Foundation Grants, SES 99–86436, and BCS-0129453.

References

  1. Anand, P. (1987). Are the preference axioms really rational. Theory and Decision, 23, 189–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bell, D. E. (1982). Regret in decision making under uncertainty. Operations Research, 30, 961–983.Google Scholar
  3. Birnbaum, M. H. (1999). Testing critical properties of decision making on the internet. Psychological Science, 10, 399–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Birnbaum, M. H. (2004). Tests of rank-dependent utility and cumulative prospect theory in gambles represented by natural frequencies: effects of format, event framing, and branch splitting. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 95, 40–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Birnbaum, M. H. (2005a). A comparison of five models that predict violations of first-order stochastic dominance in risky decision making. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 31, 263–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Birnbaum, M. H. (2005b). Three new tests of independence that differentiate models of risky decision making. Management Science, 51, 1346–1358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Birnbaum, M. H., & Gutierrez, R. J. (2007). Testing for intransitivity of preferences predicted by a lexicographic semiorder. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 104, 97–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Birnbaum, M. H., & Navarrete, J. B. (1998). Testing descriptive utility theories: violations of stochastic dominance and cumulative independence. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 17, 49–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Birnbaum, M. H., Patton, J. N., & Lott, M. K. (1999). Evidence against rank-dependent utility theories: violations of cumulative independence, interval independence, stochastic dominance, and transitivity. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 77, 44–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Birnbaum, M. H., & Schmidt, U. (2006). Testing transitivity in choice under risk, working paper. Kiel: Kiel Institute for the World Economy, available upon request.Google Scholar
  11. Blavatskyy, P. (2003). Content-dependent preferences in choice under risk: heuristic of relative probability comparisons. International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis. Interim Report 03-031. Accessed at http://www.iiasa.ac.at/Publications/Documents/IR-03–031.pdf.
  12. Blavatskyy, P. (2006). Axiomatization of a preference for most probable winner. Theory and Decision, 60, 17–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bleichrodt, H., & Schmidt, U. (2002). A context-dependent model of the gambling effect. Management Science, 48, 802–812.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Bleichrodt, H., & Schmidt, U. (2005). Context- and reference-dependent utility, working paper. Accessed at http://www.uni-koeln.de/wiso-fak/staatssem/fs/ss2007/Context_Ref_Dep6.pdf.
  15. Bordley, R. F. (1992). An intransitive expectations-based Bayesian variant of prospect theory. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 5, 127–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Bordley, R. F., & Hazen, G. B. (1991). SSB and weighted linear utility as expected utility with suspicion. Management Science, 37, 396–408.Google Scholar
  17. Brandstätter, E., Gigerenzer, G., & Hertwig, R. (2006). The priority heuristic: choices without tradeoffs. Psychological Review, 113, 409–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Busemeyer, J. R., & Townsend, J. T. (1993). Decision field theory: a dynamic cognition approach to decision making. Psychological Review, 100, 432–459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Camerer, C. (1989). An experimental test of several generalized utility theories. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 2, 61–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Camerer, C. (1992). Recent tests of generalizations of expected utility theory. In W. Edwards (Ed.), Utility: theories, measurement, and applications. Norwell: Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar
  21. Fishburn, P. C. (1982). Nontransitive measurable utility. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 26, 31–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Fishburn, P. C. (1991). Nontransitive preferences in decision theory. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 4, 113–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Fishburn, P. C. (1992). Nontransitive preferences and normative decision theory. In J. Geweke (Ed.), Decision making under risk and uncertainty: new models and empirical findings. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar
  24. González-Vallejo, C. (2002). Making trade-offs: a probabilistic and context-sensitive model of choice behavior. Psychological Review, 109, 137–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Harless, D. W., & Camerer, C. F. (1994). The predictive utility of generalized expected utility theories. Econometrica, 62, 1251–1290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hey, J. D., & Orme, C. (1994). Investigating generalizations of expected utility theory using experimental data. Econometrica, 62, 1291–1326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Humphrey, S. J. (2001). Non-transitive choice: event-splitting effects or framing effects. Economica, 68, 77–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Iverson, G. J., & Falmagne, J.-C. (1985). Statistical issues in measurement. Mathematical Social Sciences, 10, 131–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Iverson, G. J., Myung, J. I., & Karabatsos, G. (2006). Intransitivity of preference: revisited, working paper. Irvine, CA: University of California, Irvine.Google Scholar
  30. Leland, J. W. (1994). Generalized similarity judgments: an alternative explanation for choice anomalies. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 9, 151–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Leland, J. W. (1998). Similarity judgments in choice under uncertainty: a re-interpretation of the predictions of regret theory. Management Science, 44, 659–672.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Loomes, G., Starmer, C., & Sugden, R. (1989). Preference reversal: information-processing effect or rational non-transitive choice? The Economic Journal, 99, 140–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Loomes, G., Starmer, C., & Sugden, R. (1991). Observing violations of transitivity by experimental methods. Econometrica, 59, 425–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Loomes, G., & Sugden, R. (1982). Regret theory: an alternative theory of rational choice under uncertainty. The Economic Journal, 92, 805–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Loomes, G., & Taylor, C. (1992). Non-transitive preferences over gains and losses. The Economic Journal, 102, 357–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Luce, R. D. (1959). Individual choice behavior. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  37. Luce, R. D. (1994). Thurstone and sensory scaling: then and now. Psychological Review, 101, 271–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Luce, R. D. (2000). Utility of gains and losses: measurement-theoretical and experimental approaches. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  39. Marley, A. A. J., & Luce, R. D. (2005). Independence properties vis-à-vis several utility representations. Theory and Decision, 58, 77–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Regenwetter, M., & Stober, C. (2006). Testing transitivity by testing the triangle inequality instead of weak stochastic transitivity. Fullerton: Edwards Bayesian Research Conference.Google Scholar
  41. Rubinstein, A. (1988). Similarity and decision-making under risk (Is there a utility theory resolution to the allais-paradox?). Journal of Economic Theory, 46(1), 145–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Sopher, B., & Gigliotti, G. (1993). Intransitive cycles: rational choice or random error? An answer based on estimation of error rates with experimental data. Theory and Decision, 35, 311–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Starmer, C. (1999). Cycling with rules of thumb: an experimental test for a new form of non-transitive behaviour. Theory and Decision, 46, 141–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Starmer, C. (2000). Developments in non-expected utility theory: the hunt for a descriptive theory of choice under risk. Journal of Economic Literature, 38, 332–382.Google Scholar
  45. Starmer, C., & Sugden, R. (1998). Testing alternative explanations of cyclical choices. Economica, 65, 347–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Stevenson, M. K., Busemeyer, J. R., & Naylor, J. C. (1991). Judgment and decision-making theory. In M. Dunnette, & L. M. Hough (Eds.), New handbook of industrial-organizational psychology. Palo Alto: Consulting Psychologist.Google Scholar
  47. Thurstone, L. L. (1927). A law of comparative judgment. Psychological Review, 34, 273–286 (Reprinted 1994, 101, 266–270).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Tversky, A. (1969). Intransitivity of preferences. Psychological Review, 76, 31–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1992). Advances in prospect theory: cumulative representation of uncertainty. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 5, 297–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Viscusi, W. K. (1989). Prospective reference theory: toward an explanation of the paradoxes. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 2, 235–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Wu, G., Zhang, J., & Gonzalez, R. (2004). Decision under risk. In D. Koehler, & N. Harvey (Eds.),Blackwell handbook of judgment and decision making. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyCSUF H-830MFullertonUSA
  2. 2.Department of EconomicsUniversity of KielKielGermany
  3. 3.Kiel Institute for the World EconomyKielGermany

Personalised recommendations