AN INVESTIGATION OF INTRANSITIVE CHOICE BEHAVIOR
Authors: Tucker William H. 
Published: August 2014

Individuals are often asked to make choices from all possible pairs of a set of stimuli. For each pair they may have to select the alternative which is heavier, more preferable, more favorable to Blacks, etc. Intransitive or circular choice behavior occurs when an individual selects stimulus A over B, B over C, and then C over A. Such a pattern of choices is referred to as a circular triad. Since most theories of choice assume transitivity as a basic principle of human choice behavior, explanation of the occurrence of intransitivities is a crucial problem in the behavioral sciences.

Three types of explanation have been posited for the existence of circular choices. One suggests that the subject is not taking the necessary effort to make careful choices; that is, intransitivities occur due to the individual's sloppiness or carelessness. Since subjects typically seem to make choices in a conscientious manner, this outlook is not very plausible. Another explanation is that intransitivities arise from the close proximity of stimuli on an underlying linear continuum. Thus, even though the subject is conscientious, the stimuli may in some cases be too similar to distinguish. This explanation implies that there is really no difference between intransitivity and inconsistency ‐ the reversal of responses by a subject over two administrations of the same pairs of choices.

The third type of explanation concerns the development of a choice model which might account for intransitive behavior. Some attempts at such a model focus on the multidimensional nature of the stimuli, circularities being caused by the way in which a subject combines ratings on the separate dimensions to yield an overall choice between the pair of alternatives. Specifically, the additive difference model developed by Tversky (1969), drawing on earlier work by May (1954) and Morrison (1962) suggests that stable circular triads (i.e., intransitivities occurring in exactly the same way) would be expected from two administrations of the same choice pairs.

Accordingly, five questionnaires were administered to a group of subjects on two separate occasions. In each case the subjects for the second administration were the same individuals who had completed the questionnaire the first time, so that data could be obtained on the responses of the same subject to the same pairs of choices on two distinct administrations. The principal concerns were the following:

To find evidence for the existence of stable (i.e., over testings) circular triads.

To investigate the appropriateness of the additive difference model, if such stable circularities are found.

If such evidence is not found, to investigate the intrasitivity‐as‐inconsistency explanation by exploring the relationship between circular triads and changes in response to individual items over the two administrations.

With the exception of one subject on one questionnaire, no such evidence for stable intransitivities was found.

Consequently, the inconsistency explanation was investigated by a factor analysis of nine variables derived from the subjects' choices. These variables were measures of consistency, transitivity and discrimination among stimuli. Results of this analysis suggest that the assumption of circular choices as synonymous with inconsistency is upheld for three of the five questionnaires.