Is the transitivity of choices a proper measure of rationality?

Abstract

According to normative rationality, transitivity of choices is a benchmark for rational behavior. We argue that context should always be taken into account when discussing benchmarks. Using a series of simple mathematical tasks, we assessed participants’ responses against two criteria of rationality: transitivity and accuracy. In Study 1, the relation between the number of transitivity violations and the number of errors was best described by a reversed U-shaped function. This means that, as long as the participants use an adequate strategy and computational errors are merely accidental, transitivity violation positively relates to the number of errors. Otherwise, if the participants use an inadequate strategy that leads to systematic errors, transitivity violation negatively relates to the number of errors. We replicated these findings in Study 2. People can make decisions that comply with the transitivity criterion but are inaccurate; being erroneous, though transitive, does not make one’s behavior rational.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

References

  1. Arkes, H. R., Gigerenzer, G., & Hertwig, R. (2016). How bad is incoherence? Decision, 3(1), 20–39. https://doi.org/10.1037/dec0000043.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Ayal, S., Rusou, Z., Zakay, D., & Hochman, G. (2015). Determinants of judgment and decision making quality: The interplay between information processing style and situational factors. Frontiers in Psychology, 6(July), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01088.

  3. Berg, N., Eckel, C., & Johnson, C., (2008). Inconsistency Pays?: Time-inconsistent subjects and EU violators earn more. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1692437 Retrieved from Social Science Research Network (SSRN) database.

  4. Birnbaum, M. H., & Gutierrez, R. J. (2007). Testing for intransitivity of preferences predicted by a lexicographic semi-order. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 104(1), 96–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2007.02.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Bröder, A., & Newell, B. R. (2008). Challenging some common beliefs: Empirical work within the adaptive toolbox metaphor. Judgment and Decision Making, 3(3), 205-214. Retrieved online from http://journal.sjdm.org/bn2/bn2.html.

  6. Caplin, A., & Dean, M. (2015). Revealed preference, rational inattention, and costly information acquisition. American Economic Review, 105(7), 2183–2203. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.20140117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Cherry, T. L., & Shogren, J. F. (2007). Rationality crossovers. Journal of Economic Psychology, 28, 261–277. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2006.12.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Cherry, T. L., Crocker, T. D., & Shogren, J. F. (2003). Rationality spillovers. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 45, 63–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0095-0696(02)00008-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Czerlinski, J., Gigerenzer, G., & Goldstein, D. G. (1999). How good are simple heuristics? In G. Gigerenzer, P. M. Todd, & ABC Research Group (Eds.), Simple heuristics that make us smart (pp. 97–188). New York: Oxford University Press.

  10. Evans, J. S. B. T., & Stanovich, K. E. (2013). Dual-process theories of higher cognition. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8(3), 223–241. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691612460685.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Gigerenzer, G. (2008). Why heuristics work. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3(1), 20–29. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6916.2008.00058.x.

  12. Gigerenzer, G., & Brighton, H. (2009). Homo Heuristicus: Why biased minds make better inferences. Topics in Cognitive Science, 1(1), 107–143. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1756-8765.2008.01006.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Gigerenzer, G., & Gaissmaier, W. (2011). Heuristic decision making. Annual Review of Psychology, 62, 451–482. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-120709-145346.

  14. Gigerenzer, G., & Goldstein, D., G. (2011). The recognition heuristic: A decade of research. Judgment and Decision Making, 6(1), 100-121. Retrieved online from http://library.mpib-berlin.mpg.de/ft/gg/GG_Recognition_2011.pdf.

  15. Kahneman, D., Slovic, P., & Tverski, A. (eds.) (1982) Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Cambridge University Press.

  16. Kendall, M. G., & Smith, B. B. (1940). On the method of paired comparisons. Biometrika, 31(3/4), 324–345. https://doi.org/10.2307/2332613.

  17. Keramati, M., Dezfouli, A., & Piray, P. (2011). Speed/accuracy trade-off between the habitual and the goal-directed processes. PLoS Computational Biology, 7(5), e1002055. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002055.

  18. Kruglanski, A. W., & Gigerenzer, G. (2011). Intuitive and deliberate judgments are based on common principles. Psychological Review, 118(1), 97–109. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020762.

  19. Lee, L., Amir, O., & Ariely, D. (2009). In search of Homo Economicus: Cognitive noise and the role of emotion in preference consistency. Journal of Consumer Research, 36(2), 173–187. https://doi.org/10.1086/597160.

  20. Mousavi, S., & Gigerenzer, G. (2011). Revisiting the "error" in studies of cognitive errors. In D. A. Hofmann, & M. Frese (Eds.), Errors in organizations (pp. 97-112). New York: Taylor & Francis.

  21. Mousavi, S., & Kheirandish, R. (2014). Behind and beyond a shared definition of ecological rationality: A functional view of heuristics. Journal of Business Research, 67(8), 1780–1785. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2014.03.004.

  22. Pacini, R., & Epstein, S. (1999). The relation of rational and experiential information processing styles to personality, basic beliefs, and the ratio-bias phenomenon. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76(6), 972–987. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.76.6.972.

  23. Phillips, W., J., Fletcher, J., M., Marks, A., D., G., & Hine, D., W., (2016). Thinking styles and decision making: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 142(3), 260–290. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000027.

  24. Regenwetter, M., Dana, J., & Davis-Stober, C., P. (2011). Transitivity of preferences. Psychological Review, 118(1), 42–56. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021150.

  25. Rusou, Z., Zakay, D., & Usher, M. (2013). Pitting intuitive and analytical thinking against each other: The case of transitivity. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 20(3), 608–614. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-013-0382-7.

  26. Sleboda, P., & Sokolowska, J. (2017). Measurements of rationality: Individual differences in information processing, the transitivity of preferences and decision strategies. Frontiers in Psychology, 8(1844). https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01844.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Todd, P. M., & Gigerenzer, G. (2007). Environments that make us smart: Ecological rationality. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16(3), 167–171. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8721.2007.00497.x.

  28. Todorov, A. (1997). Another look at reasoning experiments: Rationality, normative models and conversational factors. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 27(4), 387–417. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-5914.00049

  29. Toplak, M., E., West, R., F., & Stanovich, K., E. (2011). The cognitive reflection test as a predictor of performance on heuristics-and-biases tasks. Memory & Cognition, 39(7), 1275–1289. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-011-0104-1.

  30. Toplak, M. E., West, R. F., & Stanovich, K. E. (2014). Assessing miserly information processing: An expansion of the cognitive reflection test. Thinking & Reasoning, 20(2), 147–168. https://doi.org/10.1080/13546783.2013.844729.

  31. Torngren, G., & Montgomery, H. (2004). Worse than chance? Performance and confidence among professionals and laypeople in the stock market. Journal of Behavioral Finance, 5(3), 148–153. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15427579jpfm0503_3.

  32. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185(4157), 1124–1131. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.185.4157.1124.

  33. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1983). Extension versus intuitive reasoning: The conjunction fallacy in probability judgment. Psychological Review, 90, 293–315. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.90.4.293.

  34. Von Neumann, J., & Morgenstern, O. (1944). Theory of games and economic behavior. Princeton, NJ, US: Princeton University Press.

  35. Wason, P., C. (1966). Reasoning. In Foss, B., M. (Ed.), New horizons in psychology (pp. 135–151). Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin.

  36. Wason, P. C. (1968). Reasoning about a rule. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 20, 273–281. https://doi.org/10.1080/14640746808400161.

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Laurenţiu P. Maricuţoiu.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Maroiu, C., Maricuţoiu, L.P. Is the transitivity of choices a proper measure of rationality?. Curr Psychol (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-019-00187-z

Download citation

Keywords

  • Transitivity violation
  • Ecological rationality
  • Normative rationality
  • Heuristics
  • Intuition
  • Deliberation