IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this paper

Do we agree? Measuring the cohesiveness of preferences

  • Jorge Alcalde-Unzu
  • Marc Vorsatz

In this paper, we suggest new ways of how to measure the similarity of preferences in a group of individuals. For simplicity, we refer to this as the cohesiveness (of preferences). We propose axioms a cohesiveness measure should satisfy and show that these properties fully characterize a family of measures. According to it, the similarities between each pair of objects in a preference profile -calculated as the proportion margin by which one objects wins against the other in a pairwise comparison- are aggregated by a weighted mean. The weight of each pair of objects depends on their importance at the social level

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL: http://documentos.fedea.net/pubs/dt/2010/dt-2010-23.pdf
Download Restriction: no

Paper provided by FEDEA in its series Working Papers with number 2010-23.

as
in new window

Length:
Date of creation: Sep 2010
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:fda:fdaddt:2010-23
Contact details of provider: Web page: http://www.fedea.net

References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:

as in new window
  1. Christian Klamler, 2008. "A distance measure for choice functions," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 30(3), pages 419-425, April.
  2. Wade D. Cook & Lawrence M. Seiford, 1978. "Priority Ranking and Consensus Formation," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 24(16), pages 1721-1732, December.
  3. David I. Laibson & Andrea Repetto & Jeremy Tobacman, 1998. "Self-Control and Saving for Retirement," Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, Economic Studies Program, The Brookings Institution, vol. 29(1), pages 91-196.
  4. David Laibson, 1997. "Golden Eggs and Hyperbolic Discounting," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 112(2), pages 443-478.
  5. Chambers, Christopher P. & Hayashi, Takashi, 2008. "Choice and individual welfare," Working Papers 1286, California Institute of Technology, Division of the Humanities and Social Sciences.
  6. Can, Burak, 2014. "Weighted distances between preferences," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 109-115.
  7. Hervé MOULIN & Yves SPRUMONT, 2002. "Responsibility And Cross-Subsidization In Cost Sharing," Cahiers de recherche 19-2002, Centre interuniversitaire de recherche en économie quantitative, CIREQ.
  8. 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.
  9. Katherine Baldiga & Jerry Green, 2013. "Assent-maximizing social choice," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 40(2), pages 439-460, February.
  10. Wade D. Cook & Lawrence M. Seiford, 1982. "On the Borda-Kendall Consensus Method for Priority Ranking Problems," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 28(6), pages 621-637, June.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:fda:fdaddt:2010-23. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Carmen Arias)

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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

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

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.