Abstract
May developed an algebraic choice model to describe pairwise comparisons from an empirical study. A probabilistic choice variation of May's model has also been developed. This study presents a survey of work that considers the expected likelihood that a subject using the probabilistic model will have transitive responses for pairwise choices on a set of three alternatives. Of particular interest is the impact that various factors that influence the probabilistic choice model have on the expected likelihood of transitivity. These factors include the degree of accuracy with which the subject perceives the attributes of the alternatives, the number of attributes of comparison, and the consistency with which alternatives are ranked across attributes.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Arrow, K. J.: 1963,Social Choice and Individual Values (2nd ed.), New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Bar-Hillel, M. and Margalit, A.: 1988, ‘How vicious are cycles of intransitive choice?’,Theory and Decision,24, 119–145.
Becker, G. M. and McClintock C. G.: 1967, ‘Value: behavioral decision theory’,Annual Review of Psychology,18, 239–286.
Berg, S.: 1985, ‘A note on plurality distortion in large committees’,European Journal of Political Economy,1, 271–284.
Berg, S. and Bjurulf, B.: 1983, ‘A note on the paradox of voting: anonymous preference profiles and May's formula’,Public Choice,40, 307–316.
Bettman, J. R.: 1979,An Information Processing Theory of Consumer Choice, New York: Addison-Wesley.
Bezembinder, T., and van Acker, P.: 1980, ‘Intransitivity of individual and social choice’, in E. D. Lantermann and H. Feger (Eds.),Similarity and Choice, Bern: Hans Huber Publishers.
Black, D.: 1958,The Theory of Committees and Elections, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Coleman, J. S.: 1973,Mathematics of Collective Action, Chicago: Aldine Publishing.
Coombs, C. H.: 1958, ‘On the inconsistency of preferences in psychological measurement’,Journal of Experimental Psychology,55, 1–7.
Coombs, C. H. and Avrunin, G. S.: 1988,The Structure of Conflict, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associate Publishers.
Condorcet, Marquis de: ‘Essai sur l'application de l'analyse a la probabilité des decisions rendues á la pluralité de voix’, Paris (reprinted in 1973 by Chelsea Press: New York).
De Soete, G., Feger, H. and Klauer, K. C.: 1989,New Developments in Psychological Choice Modeling, Amsterdam: North Holland.
Fishburn, P.C.: 1973, ‘A proof of May's theoremP(m, 4)=2P(m, 3)’,Behavioral Science,18, 212.
Fishburn, P. C. and Gehrlein, W. V.: 1982, ‘Majority efficiencies for simple voting procedures: summary and interpretation’,theory and Decision,14, 141–153.
Gehrlein, W. V.: 1981, ‘The expected probability of Condorcet's paradox’,Economics Letters,7, 33–37.
Gehrlein, W. V.: 1982, ‘Condorcet efficiency and constant scoring rules’,Mathematical Social Sciences,2, 123–130.
Gehrlein, W. V.: 1989, ‘The probability of intrasitivity of pairwise comparisons in individual preference,Mathematical Social Sciences,17, 67–75.
Gehrlein, W. V.: 1990a, ‘The expected likelihood of transitivity of preference’,Psychometrika,55, 695–706.
Gehrlein, W. V.: 1990b, ‘The expected likelihood of transitivity for a probabilistic chooser’,Annals of Operations Research,23, 235–246.
Gehrlein, W. V.: 1990c, ‘Probability calculations for transitivity of simple majority rule with anonymous voters’,Public Choice,66, 253–259.
Gehrlein, W. V.: 1991, ‘Coincidence probabilities for simple majority and proportional lottery rules’,Economics Letters 35, 349–353.
Gehrlein, W. V.: 1993, ‘The expected likelihood of transitivity for probabilistic choosers with single-peaked preferences’,Mathematical Social Sciences,25, 143–155.
Gehrlein, W. V. and Berg, S.: 1992, ‘The effect of social homogeneity on coincidence probabilities for pairwise proportional lottery and simple majority rules’,Social Choice and Welfare,9, 361–372.
Gehrlein, W. V. and Fishburn, P. C.: 1976a, ‘The probability of the paradox of voting: a computable solution’,Journal of Economic Theory,13, 14–25.
Gehrlein, W. V. and Fishburn, P. C.: 1976b, ‘Condorcet's paradox and anonymous preference profiles’,Public Choice,26, 1–18.
Gehrlein, W. V. and Fishburn, P. C.: 1978, ‘Probabilities of election outcomes for large electorates’,Journal of Economic Theory,19, 38–49.
Gehrlein, W. V. and Fishburn, P. C.: 1981, ‘Scoring rule and majority agreements for large electorates with arbitrary preferences’,Mathematical Social Sciences,2, 23–33.
Giraud, M., Robert, H. and Cordat, P.: 1988, ‘Failure rate of majority voting on preference rankings’, presented at Sixth International Conference on Reliability and Maintainability, Strasbourg, France.
Guilbaud, G. T.: 1952, ‘Les theories de l'intérêt général et le problème logique de l'aggregation’,Economie Appliquée,5, 501–584.
Johnson, N. L. and Kotz, S.: 1977,Urn Models and Their Applications, New York: John Wiley.
Kuga, K. and Nagatani, H.: 1974, ‘Voter antagonism and the paradox of voting’,Econometrica,42, 1045–1067.
Lepelley, D.: 1986, ‘Some results on the probability of electing the Condorcet loser,’ presented at the European Public Choice Society Meeting, Noordwijkerhout, The Netherlands.
Lepelley, D.: 1989, ‘Contribution a l'analyse des procedures de decision collective’, unpublished doctoral dissertation, Université de Caen.
Lepelley, D. and Mbih, B.: 1987, ‘The proportion of coalitionally unstable situations under the plurality rule’,Economics Letters,24, 311–316.
Luce, R. D.: 1979,Individual Choice Behavior, Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
Luce, R. D. and Suppes, P.: 1965, ‘Preference, utility, and subjective probability’, in R. D. Luce, R. R. Bush, and E. Galanter (Eds.),Handbook of Mathematical Psychology, Vol. 3, pp. 249–410, New York: John Wiley.
May, K. O.: 1954, ‘Intransitivity, utility, and the aggregation of preference patterns’,Econometrica,22, 1–13.
May, R. M.: 1971, ‘Some mathematical remarks on the paradox of voting’,Behavioral Science,16, 143–151.
Mueller, D. C.: 1989, ‘Probabilistic majority rule’,Kyklos,42, 151–170.
Russo, J. E., and Dosher, B. A.: 1983, ‘Strategies for multiattribute binary choice’,Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition,9, 676–696.
Selby, S. M. (Ed.): 1965,Standard Mathematical Tables (14th edition), Cleveland, OH: Chemical Rubber Co.
Tversky, A.: 1969, ‘Intransitivity of preferences’,Psychological Review,76, 31–48.
van Acker, P.: 1990, ‘Transitivity revisited’,Annals of Operations Research,23, 1–35.
von Neumann, J. and Morgenstern, O.: 1953,Theory of Games and Economic Behavior (3rd ed.), New York: Science Editions.
Wright, P. and Barbour, F.: 1977, ‘Phased decision strategies: sequels to an initial screening’, in M. K. Starr and M. Zeleny (Eds.),Multiple Criteria Decision Making, pp. 91–109, Amsterdam: North Holland.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
This research was supported through a fellowship from the Center for Advanced Study of the University of Delaware.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Gehrlein, W.V. The expected likelihood of transitivity: A survey. Theor Decis 37, 175–209 (1994). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01079265
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01079265