IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/grdene/v24y2015i5d10.1007_s10726-014-9415-5.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Pairwise Dichotomous Cohesiveness Measures

Author

Listed:
  • J. C. R. Alcantud

    (University of Salamanca)

  • R. Andrés Calle

    (University of Salamanca)

  • J. M. Cascón

    (University of Salamanca)

Abstract

In a framework where experts or agents express their opinions in a dichotomous way, we analyze the cohesiveness of their opinions on a fixed set of issues in a population. A parametric family of related measures are introduced and axiomatically characterized. They are ordinally equivalent when the population is fixed, and some further properties are proved. In order to argue that this restricted dichotomous situation is nevertheless versatile, the paper ends with several empirical illustrations based on real forecasts (for the 2012 American presidential election) and elections (with real data from referenda in two countries and from elections in several scientific societies).

Suggested Citation

  • J. C. R. Alcantud & R. Andrés Calle & J. M. Cascón, 2015. "Pairwise Dichotomous Cohesiveness Measures," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 24(5), pages 833-854, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:grdene:v:24:y:2015:i:5:d:10.1007_s10726-014-9415-5
    DOI: 10.1007/s10726-014-9415-5
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10726-014-9415-5
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10726-014-9415-5?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Zeshui Xu & Xiaoqiang Cai, 2013. "On Consensus of Group Decision Making with Interval Utility Values and Interval Preference Orderings," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 22(6), pages 997-1019, November.
    2. Alcantud, José Carlos R. & Muñoz-Torrecillas, María José, 2013. "On the measurement of sociopolitical consensus in direct democracies: Proposal of indexes," MPRA Paper 47268, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    3. Steven Brams & Michael Hansen & Michael Orrison, 2006. "Dead Heat: The 2006 Public Choice Society Election," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 128(3), pages 361-366, September.
    4. Steven J. Brams & Peter C. Fishburn, 2010. "Going from Theory to Practice: The Mixed Success of Approval Voting," Studies in Choice and Welfare, in: Jean-François Laslier & M. Remzi Sanver (ed.), Handbook on Approval Voting, chapter 0, pages 19-37, Springer.
    5. Biung-Ghi Ju, 2013. "On the characterization of liberalism by Samet and Schmeidler," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 40(2), pages 359-366, February.
    6. Jorge Alcalde-Unzu & Marc Vorsatz, 2013. "Measuring the cohesiveness of preferences: an axiomatic analysis," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 41(4), pages 965-988, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Powdthavee, Nattavudh & Riyanto, Yohanes E. & Knetsch, Jack L., 2018. "Lower-rated publications do lower academics’ judgments of publication lists: Evidence from a survey experiment of economists," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 33-44.
    2. Alexander Karpov, 2017. "Preference Diversity Orderings," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 26(4), pages 753-774, July.
    3. József Dombi & Jenő Fáró & Tamás Jónás, 2023. "A Fuzzy Entropy-Based Group Consensus Measure for Financial Investments," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-18, December.
    4. Irion, Kristina & Helberger, Natali, 2017. "Smart TV and the online media sector: User privacy in view of changing market realities," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(3), pages 170-184.
    5. José Carlos R. Alcantud & María José M. Torrecillas, 2017. "Consensus measures for various informational bases. Three new proposals and two case studies from political science," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 51(1), pages 285-306, January.
    6. González-Arteaga, T. & Alcantud, J.C.R. & de Andrés Calle, R., 2016. "A cardinal dissensus measure based on the Mahalanobis distance," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 251(2), pages 575-585.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Salvatore Barbaro, 2021. "A social-choice perspective on authoritarianism and political polarization," Working Papers 2108, Gutenberg School of Management and Economics, Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz.
    2. Leo Katz & Alvaro Sandroni, 2020. "Limits on power and rationality," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 54(2), pages 507-521, March.
    3. Rodríguez Alcantud, José Carlos & de Andrés Calle, Rocío & González-Arteaga, Teresa, 2013. "Codifications of complete preorders that are compatible with Mahalanobis disconsensus measures," MPRA Paper 50533, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    4. Costel Andonie & Daniel Diermeier, 2022. "Electoral Institutions with impressionable voters," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 59(3), pages 683-733, October.
    5. Benoît R. Kloeckner, 2022. "Cycles in synchronous iterative voting: general robustness and examples in Approval Voting," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 59(2), pages 423-466, August.
    6. Eyal Baharad & Jacob Goldberger & Moshe Koppel & Shmuel Nitzan, 2012. "Beyond Condorcet: optimal aggregation rules using voting records," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 72(1), pages 113-130, January.
    7. Matthew Gentzkow & Jesse M. Shapiro & Matt Taddy, 2019. "Measuring Group Differences in High‐Dimensional Choices: Method and Application to Congressional Speech," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 87(4), pages 1307-1340, July.
    8. González-Arteaga, T. & Alcantud, J.C.R. & de Andrés Calle, R., 2016. "A cardinal dissensus measure based on the Mahalanobis distance," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 251(2), pages 575-585.
    9. Steven Brams & Richard Potthoff, 2015. "The paradox of grading systems," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 165(3), pages 193-210, December.
    10. Laurent Bouton & Micael Castanheira, 2012. "One Person, Many Votes: Divided Majority and Information Aggregation," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 80(1), pages 43-87, January.
    11. Antoinette Baujard & Frédéric Gavrel & Herrade Igersheim & Jean-François Laslier & Isabelle Lebon, 2014. "Who's favored by evaluative voting? An experiment conducted during the 2012 French presidential election," Working Papers halshs-01090234, HAL.
    12. Marc Vorsatz, 2007. "Approval Voting on Dichotomous Preferences," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 28(1), pages 127-141, January.
    13. François Maniquet & Philippe Mongin, 2015. "Approval voting and Arrow’s impossibility theorem," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 44(3), pages 519-532, March.
    14. Jordi Massó & Marc Vorsatz, 2008. "Weighted approval voting," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 36(1), pages 129-146, July.
    15. Peeters, R.J.A.P. & Wolk, K.L., 2015. "Forecasting with Colonel Blotto," Research Memorandum 025, Maastricht University, Graduate School of Business and Economics (GSBE).
    16. Pierre Dehez & Victor Ginsburgh, 2020. "Approval voting and Shapley ranking," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 184(3), pages 415-428, September.
    17. Antoinette Baujard & Frédéric Gavrel & Herrade Igersheim & Jean-François Laslier & Isabelle Lebon, 2013. "Who’s Favored by Evaluative Voting ? An Experiment Conducted During the 2012 French Presidential Election," Working Papers of BETA 2013-08, Bureau d'Economie Théorique et Appliquée, UDS, Strasbourg.
    18. Rosa Camps & Xavier Mora & Laia Saumell, 2013. "A continuous rating method for preferential voting. The incomplete case," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 40(4), pages 1111-1142, April.
    19. Francesco Sinopoli & Bhaskar Dutta & Jean-François Laslier, 2006. "Approval voting: three examples," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 35(1), pages 27-38, December.
    20. Tomas J. McIntee, 2017. "A geometric model of sensitivity of multistage elections to change," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 49(1), pages 89-115, June.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:grdene:v:24:y:2015:i:5:d:10.1007_s10726-014-9415-5. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.