IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/arx/papers/2304.14631.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Nontransitive Preferences and Stochastic Rationalizability: A Behavioral Equivalence

Author

Listed:
  • Mogens Fosgerau
  • John Rehbeck

Abstract

Nontransitive choices have long been an area of curiosity within economics. However, determining whether nontransitive choices represent an individual's preference is a difficult task since choice data is inherently stochastic. This paper shows that behavior from nontransitive preferences under a monotonicity assumption is equivalent to a transitive stochastic choice model. In particular, nontransitive preferences are regularly interpreted as a strength of preference, so we assume alternatives are chosen proportionally to the nontransitive preference. One implication of this result is that one cannot distinguish ``complementarity in attention" and ``complementarity in demand."

Suggested Citation

  • Mogens Fosgerau & John Rehbeck, 2023. "Nontransitive Preferences and Stochastic Rationalizability: A Behavioral Equivalence," Papers 2304.14631, arXiv.org.
    • Handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2304.14631
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://arxiv.org/pdf/2304.14631
    File Function: Latest version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Simonson, Itamar, 1989. "Choice Based on Reasons: The Case of Attraction and Compromise Effects," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 16(2), pages 158-174, September.
    2. Steven Humphrey, 2001. "Non‐transitive Choice: Event‐Splitting Effects or Framing Effects?," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 68(269), pages 77-96, February.
    3. Mogens Fosgerau & Emerson Melo & André de Palma & Matthew Shum, 2020. "Discrete Choice And Rational Inattention: A General Equivalence Result," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 61(4), pages 1569-1589, November.
    4. Bouyssou, Denis, 1986. "Some remarks on the notion of compensation in MCDM," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 26(1), pages 150-160, July.
    5. John Quah, 2006. "Weak axiomatic demand theory," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 29(3), pages 677-699, November.
    6. Loomes, Graham & Sugden, Robert, 1982. "Regret Theory: An Alternative Theory of Rational Choice under Uncertainty," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 92(368), pages 805-824, December.
    7. Pedro Bordalo & Nicola Gennaioli & Andrei Shleifer, 2012. "Salience Theory of Choice Under Risk," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 127(3), pages 1243-1285.
    8. Michael Birnbaum & Ulrich Schmidt, 2010. "Testing transitivity in choice under risk," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 69(4), pages 599-614, October.
    9. Sundaram,Rangarajan K., 1996. "A First Course in Optimization Theory," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521497190.
    10. Loomes, Graham & Starmer, Chris & Sugden, Robert, 1991. "Observing Violations of Transitivity by Experimental Methods," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 59(2), pages 425-439, March.
    11. Marina Agranov & Pietro Ortoleva, 2017. "Stochastic Choice and Preferences for Randomization," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 125(1), pages 40-68.
    12. Mogens Fosgerau & Julien Monardo & André de Palma, 2019. "The Inverse Product Differentiation Logit Model," Working Papers hal-02183411, HAL.
    13. Shafer, Wayne J, 1974. "The Nontransitive Consumer," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 42(5), pages 913-919, September.
    14. Machina, Mark J, 1985. "Stochastic Choice Functions Generated from Deterministic Preferences over Lotteries," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 95(379), pages 575-594, September.
    15. Sørensen, Jesper R.-V. & Fosgerau, Mogens, 2022. "How McFadden met Rockafellar and learned to do more with less," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 100(C).
    16. Daniel L. McFadden & Mogens Fosgerau, 2012. "A theory of the perturbed consumer with general budgets," NBER Working Papers 17953, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    17. Josef Hofbauer & William H. Sandholm, 2002. "On the Global Convergence of Stochastic Fictitious Play," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 70(6), pages 2265-2294, November.
    18. Yusufcan Masatlioglu & Collin Raymond, 2016. "A Behavioral Analysis of Stochastic Reference Dependence," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 106(9), pages 2760-2782, September.
    19. Sundaram,Rangarajan K., 1996. "A First Course in Optimization Theory," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521497701.
    20. David E. Bell, 1982. "Regret in Decision Making under Uncertainty," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 30(5), pages 961-981, October.
    21. Fishburn, Peter C & LaValle, Irving H, 1988. "Context-Dependent Choice with Nonlinear and Nontransitive Preferences," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 56(5), pages 1221-1239, September.
    22. Hans Keiding & Mich Tvede, 2013. "Revealed smooth nontransitive preferences," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 54(3), pages 463-484, November.
    23. Huber, Joel & Payne, John W & Puto, Christopher, 1982. "Adding Asymmetrically Dominated Alternatives: Violations of Regularity and the Similarity Hypothesis," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 9(1), pages 90-98, June.
    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. Maes, Sebastiaan & Malhotra, Raghav, 2024. "Beyond the Mean : Testing Consumer Rationality through Higher Moments of Demand," CRETA Online Discussion Paper Series 85, Centre for Research in Economic Theory and its Applications CRETA.

    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. Emerson Melo, 2021. "Learning in Random Utility Models Via Online Decision Problems," Papers 2112.10993, arXiv.org, revised Aug 2022.
    2. Gerasímou, Georgios, 2010. "Consumer theory with bounded rational preferences," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 46(5), pages 708-714, September.
    3. Michael Birnbaum & Ulrich Schmidt, 2008. "An experimental investigation of violations of transitivity in choice under uncertainty," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 37(1), pages 77-91, August.
    4. Terry Connolly & Jochen Reb, 2012. "Regret aversion in reason-based choice," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 73(1), pages 35-51, July.
    5. Bakó, Barna & Neszveda, Gábor, 2020. "The Achilles’ heel of Salience theory and a way to fix it," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 193(C).
    6. Aurélien Baillon & Han Bleichrodt & Alessandra Cillo, 2015. "A Tailor-Made Test of Intransitive Choice," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 63(1), pages 198-211, February.
    7. Herweg, Fabian & Müller, Daniel, 2021. "A comparison of regret theory and salience theory for decisions under risk," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 193(C).
    8. Amélie Vrijdags, 2010. "An experimental investigation of transitivity in set ranking," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 68(1), pages 213-232, February.
    9. Nunnari, Salvatore & Zapal, Jan, 2017. "A Model of Focusing in Political Choice," CEPR Discussion Papers 12407, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    10. Pedro Bordalo & Nicola Gennaioli & Andrei Shleifer, 2013. "Salience and Consumer Choice," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 121(5), pages 803-843.
    11. Kobi Kriesler & Shmuel Nitzan, 2009. "Framing-based Choice: A Model of Decision-making Under Risk," Korean Economic Review, Korean Economic Association, vol. 25, pages 65-89.
    12. Roy Allen & John Rehbeck, 2021. "A Generalization of Quantal Response Equilibrium via Perturbed Utility," Games, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-16, March.
    13. Han Bleichrodt & Ulrich Schmidt, 2002. "A Context-Dependent Model of the Gambling Effect," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 48(6), pages 802-812, June.
    14. Heydari, Pedram, 2021. "Luce arbitrates: Stochastic resolution of inner conflicts," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 33-74.
    15. Suzuki, Toru, 2019. "Choice set dependent performance and post-decision dissonance," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 163(C), pages 24-42.
    16. Pavlo Blavatskyy, 2018. "A second-generation disappointment aversion theory of decision making under risk," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 84(1), pages 29-60, January.
    17. Denis Bouyssou & Marc Pirlot, 2008. "On some ordinal models for decision making under uncertainty," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 163(1), pages 19-48, October.
    18. Mark Schneider & Robert Day, 2018. "Target-Adjusted Utility Functions and Expected-Utility Paradoxes," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(1), pages 271-287, January.
    19. Jörg Rieskamp & Jerome R. Busemeyer & Barbara A. Mellers, 2006. "Extending the Bounds of Rationality: Evidence and Theories of Preferential Choice," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 44(3), pages 631-661, September.
    20. Emerson Melo, 2021. "Learning In Random Utility Models Via Online Decision Problems," CAEPR Working Papers 2022-003 Classification-D, Center for Applied Economics and Policy Research, Department of Economics, Indiana University Bloomington.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:arx:papers:2304.14631. 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: arXiv administrators (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://arxiv.org/ .

    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.