Collective Choice May Tell Nothing About Anyone’s Individual Preferences

References

• Ainslie G (1975) Specious reward: A behavioral theory of impulsiveness and impulse control. Psych. Bull. 82(4):463–496.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Akaike H (1974) A new look at the statistical model identification. IEEE Trans. Automation Control 19(6):716–723.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Arrow KJ (1951) Social Choice and Individual Values (Wiley, New York).Google Scholar
• Auld MC, Grootendorst P (2004) An empirical analysis of milk addiction. J. Health Econom. 23(6):1117–1133.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ballinger T, Wilcox N (1997) Decisions, error and heterogeneity. Econom. J. 107(443):1090–1105.Google Scholar
• Blavatskyy PR, Pogrebna G (2010) Models of stochastic choice and decision theories: Why both are important for analyzing decisions. J. Appl. Econometrics 25(6):963–986.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Brams SJ, Kilgour DM, Zwicker WS (1998) The paradox of multiple elections. Soc. Choice Welfare 15(2):211–236.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Brandstätter E, Gigerenzer G, Hertwig R (2006) The priority heuristic: Making choices without trade-offs. Psych. Rev. 113(2):409–432.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Budescu DV, Chen E (2015) Identifying expertise to extract the wisdom of crowds. Management Sci. 61(2):267–280.Link, Google Scholar
• Carbone E, Hey JD (2000) Which error story is best? J. Risk Uncertainty 20(2):161–176.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cavagnaro DR, Davis-Stober CP (2014) Transitive in our preferences, but transitive in different ways: An analysis of choice variability. Decision 1(2):102–122.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Condorcet M (1785) Essai sur l’application de l’analyse à la probabilité des décisions rendues à la pluralité des voix (Essai on the application of the probabilistic analysis of majority vote decisions) (Imprimerie Royale, Paris).Google Scholar
• Dai J (2017a) Are intertemporal preferences transitive? A Bayesian analysis of repeated individual intertemporal choices. Decision 4(1):1–24.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dai J (2017b) Using tests of transitivity to evaluate psychological models of intertemporal choice for individuals: Reply to Scholten (2017). Decision 4(2):127–130.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Davis-Stober CP, Regenwetter M (2019) The 'paradox' of converging evidence. Psych. Rev. 126(6):865–879.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Davis-Stober CP, Budescu DV, Broomell SB, Dana J (2015) The composition of optimally wise crowds. Decision Anal. 12(3):130–143.Link, Google Scholar
• Davis-Stober CP, Budescu DV, Dana J, Broomell SB (2014) When is a crowd wise? Decision 1(2):79–101.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Davis-Stober CP, Park S, Brown N, Regenwetter M (2016) Reported violations of rationality may be aggregation artifacts. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 113(33):E4761–E4763.Google Scholar
• Ericson KMM, White JM, Laibson D, Cohen JD (2015) Money earlier or later? Simple heuristics explain intertemporal choices better than delay discounting does. Psych. Sci. 26(6):826–833.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Frederick S, Loewenstein G, O’Donoghue T (2002) Time discounting and time preference: A critical review. J. Econom. Literature 40(2):351–401.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Graefe A (2015) Improving forecasts using equally weighted predictors. J. Bus. Res. 68(8):1792–1799.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Green KC, Armstrong JS (2015) Simple vs. complex forecasting: The evidence. J. Bus. Res. 68(8):1678–1685.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Harless DW, Camerer M (1994) The predictive utility of generalized expected utility theories. Econometrica 62(6):1251–1290.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hey JD, Orme C (1994) Investigating generalizations of the expected utility theory using experimental data. Econometrica 62(6):1291–1326.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hong L, Page SE (2004) Groups of diverse problem solvers can outperform groups of high-ability problem solvers. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 101(46):16385–16389.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Jeffreys H (1961) Theory of Probability (Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK).Google Scholar
• Keuschnigg M, Ganser C (2017) Crowd wisdom relies on agents’ ability in small groups with a voting aggregation rule. Management Sci. 63(3):818–828.Link, Google Scholar
• Klugkist I, Hoijtink H (2007) The Bayes factor for inequality and about equality constrained models. Comput. Statist. Data Anal. 51(12):6367–6379.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lacy D, Niou EM (2000) A problem with referendums. J. Theoret. Politics 12(1):5–31.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Laibson D (1997) Golden eggs and hyperbolic discounting. Quart. J. Econom. 112(2):443–477.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lamberson P, Page SE (2012) Optimal forecasting groups. Management Sci. 58(4):805–810.Link, Google Scholar
• Lorenz J, Rauhut H, Schweitzer F, Helbing D (2011) How social influence can undermine the wisdom of crowd effect. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 108(22):9020–9025.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Luce RD (1959) On the possible psychophysical laws. Psych. Rev. 66(2):81–95.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mannes AE (2009) Are we wise about the wisdom of crowds? The use of group judgments in belief revision. Management Sci. 55(8):1267–1279.Link, Google Scholar
• Myung J, Karabatsos G, Iverson G (2005) A Bayesian approach to testing decision making axioms. J. Math. Psych. 49(3):205–225.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Popov S, Popova A, Regenwetter M (2014) Consensus in organizations: Hunting for the social choice conundrum in APA elections. Decision 1(2):123–146.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Read D, Frederick S, Scholten M (2013) DRIFT: An analysis of outcome framing in intertemporal choice. J. Exp. Psych. Learn. Memory Cognition 39(2):573–588.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Regenwetter M (2009) Perspectives on preference aggregation. Perspect. Psych. Sci. 4(4):403–407.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Regenwetter M, Davis-Stober C (2018) The role of independence and stationarity in probabilistic models of binary choice: A summary and review. J. Behav. Decision Making 31(1):100–114.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Regenwetter M, Robinson MM (2017) The construct–behavior gap in behavioral decision research: A challenge beyond replicability. Psych. Rev. 124(5):533–550.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Regenwetter M, Robinson MM (2019) The construct-behavior gap revisited: Reply to Hertwig and Pleskac (2018). Psych. Rev. 126(3):451–454.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Regenwetter M, Dana J, Davis-Stober CP (2010) Testing transitivity of preferences on two-alternative forced choice data. Frontiers Psych. 1:148.Google Scholar
• Regenwetter M, Dana J, Davis-Stober CP (2011) Transitivity of preferences. Psych. Rev. 118(1):42–56.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Regenwetter M, Grofman B, Popova A, Messner W, Davis-Stober CP, Cavagnaro DR (2009) Behavioural social choice: A status report. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. London B 364(1518):833–843.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Regenwetter M, Cavagnaro D, Popova A, Guo Y, Zwilling C, Lim SH, Stevens JR (2018) Heterogeneity and parsimony in intertemporal choice. Decision 5(2):63–94.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Regenwetter M, Davis-Stober CP, Lim SH, Guo Y, Popova A, Zwilling C, Cha YC, Messner W (2014) QTest: Quantitative testing of theories of binary choice. Decision 1(1):2–34.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Samuelson PA (1937) A note on measurement of utility. Rev. Econom. Stud. 4(2):155–161.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Scholten M (2017) Thoughts on analyses of intransitive intertemporal preference. Decision 4(2):123–126.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Scholten M, Read D (2010) The psychology of intertemporal tradeoffs. Psych. Rev. 117(3):925–944.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Schwarz GE (1978) Estimating the dimension of a model. Ann. Statist. 6(2):461–464.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Stott HP (2006) Cumulative prospect theory’s functional menagerie. J. Risk Uncertainty 32(2):101–130.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Surowiecki J (2004) The Wisdom of Crowds (Doubleday Books, New York).Google Scholar
• Thurstone L (1927) A law of comparative judgment. Psych. Rev. 34(4):273–286.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tsetsos K, Moran R, Moreland JC, Chater N, Usher M, Summerfield C (2016a) Economic irrationality is optimal during noisy decision making. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 113(1):3102–3107.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tsetsos K, Moran R, Moreland JC, Chater N, Usher M, Summerfield C (2016b) Reply to Davis-Stober et al.: Violations of rationality in a psychophysical task are not aggregation artifacts. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 113(33):E4764–E4766.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tversky A, Kahneman D (1981) The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science 211(4481):453–458.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tversky A, Kahneman D (1992) Advances in prospect theory: Cumulative representation of uncertainty. J. Risk Uncertainty 5(4):297–323.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wakker P, Erev I, Weber E (1994) Comonotonic independence: The critical test between classical and rank-dependent utility theories. J. Risk Uncertainty 9(3):195–230.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wilcox N (2008) Stochastic models for binary discrete choice under risk: A critical primer and econometric comparison. Cox JC, Harrison GW, eds. Risk Aversion in Experiments (Emerald, Bingley, UK), 197–292.Google Scholar
• Zwilling CE, Cavagnaro DR, Regenwetter M, Lim SH, Fields B, Zhang Y (2019) QTest 2.1: Quantitative testing of theories of binary choice using Bayesian inference. J. Math. Psych. 91:176–194.Crossref, Google Scholar