Is the transitivity of choices a proper measure of rationality?

According to normative rationality, transitivity of choices is a benchmark for rational behavior. We argue that context should always be taken into account when discussing benchmarks. Using a series of simple mathematical tasks, we assessed participants’ responses against two criteria of rationality...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Current psychology (New Brunswick, N.J.) N.J.), 2021-06, Vol.40 (6), p.2654-2664
Hauptverfasser: Maroiu, Cristina, Maricuţoiu, Laurenţiu P.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 2664
container_issue 6
container_start_page 2654
container_title Current psychology (New Brunswick, N.J.)
container_volume 40
creator Maroiu, Cristina
Maricuţoiu, Laurenţiu P.
description According to normative rationality, transitivity of choices is a benchmark for rational behavior. We argue that context should always be taken into account when discussing benchmarks. Using a series of simple mathematical tasks, we assessed participants’ responses against two criteria of rationality: transitivity and accuracy. In Study 1, the relation between the number of transitivity violations and the number of errors was best described by a reversed U-shaped function. This means that, as long as the participants use an adequate strategy and computational errors are merely accidental, transitivity violation positively relates to the number of errors. Otherwise, if the participants use an inadequate strategy that leads to systematic errors, transitivity violation negatively relates to the number of errors. We replicated these findings in Study 2. People can make decisions that comply with the transitivity criterion but are inaccurate; being erroneous, though transitive, does not make one’s behavior rational.
doi_str_mv 10.1007/s12144-019-00187-z
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>gale_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2580027910</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A666289491</galeid><sourcerecordid>A666289491</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c502t-1b0c0428350e362a0505cb38ed04a31f8a3b28daf62ef36c7629af4bd3c412713</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqN0l1r2zAUBmAzNljX9Q_0yjAY7ELd0Ydl6ap0ZesChUG7XQtFOUpUHCuT5LL2109ZBl0glOELG_l59WG_TXNK4YwC9B8zZVQIAlQTAKp68viiOaKaSyJ6zl_WZxCSUE7hdfMm57uKeqn1UXM-y21ZYVuSHXMo4T6Uhzb61q1icJhb225S3GBq12jzlHD7LtkS4miHSs_fNq-8HTKe_L0fNz--fP5--ZVcf7uaXV5cE9cBK4TOwYFgineAXDILHXRuzhUuQFhOvbJ8ztTCesnQc-l6ybT1Yr7gTlDWU37cvNvNW7fzc8JczF2cUt1ENqxTAKzXFJ5VVEnNlJTdk1raAU0Yfaynd-uQnbmQUjKlhd6uSA6oJY6Y7BBH9KEO7_mzA75eC1wHdzDwYS9QTcFfZWmnnM3s9ub_7aerffv-H7tCO5RVjsO0_Wl5H7IddCnmnNCbTQprmx4MBbOtldnVytRamT-1Mo81xHehXPG4xPT0iZ9J_QbcI8np</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2186928665</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Is the transitivity of choices a proper measure of rationality?</title><source>SpringerLink Journals - AutoHoldings</source><creator>Maroiu, Cristina ; Maricuţoiu, Laurenţiu P.</creator><creatorcontrib>Maroiu, Cristina ; Maricuţoiu, Laurenţiu P.</creatorcontrib><description>According to normative rationality, transitivity of choices is a benchmark for rational behavior. We argue that context should always be taken into account when discussing benchmarks. Using a series of simple mathematical tasks, we assessed participants’ responses against two criteria of rationality: transitivity and accuracy. In Study 1, the relation between the number of transitivity violations and the number of errors was best described by a reversed U-shaped function. This means that, as long as the participants use an adequate strategy and computational errors are merely accidental, transitivity violation positively relates to the number of errors. Otherwise, if the participants use an inadequate strategy that leads to systematic errors, transitivity violation negatively relates to the number of errors. We replicated these findings in Study 2. People can make decisions that comply with the transitivity criterion but are inaccurate; being erroneous, though transitive, does not make one’s behavior rational.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1046-1310</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1936-4733</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s12144-019-00187-z</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>New York: Springer US</publisher><subject>Behavioral Science and Psychology ; Benchmarks ; Methods ; Psychological research ; Psychology ; Rationality ; Social Sciences</subject><ispartof>Current psychology (New Brunswick, N.J.), 2021-06, Vol.40 (6), p.2654-2664</ispartof><rights>Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019</rights><rights>COPYRIGHT 2021 Springer</rights><rights>Current Psychology is a copyright of Springer, (2019). All Rights Reserved.</rights><rights>Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c502t-1b0c0428350e362a0505cb38ed04a31f8a3b28daf62ef36c7629af4bd3c412713</cites><orcidid>0000-0001-8358-3130</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s12144-019-00187-z$$EPDF$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/10.1007/s12144-019-00187-z$$EHTML$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27923,27924,41487,42556,51318</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Maroiu, Cristina</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Maricuţoiu, Laurenţiu P.</creatorcontrib><title>Is the transitivity of choices a proper measure of rationality?</title><title>Current psychology (New Brunswick, N.J.)</title><addtitle>Curr Psychol</addtitle><description>According to normative rationality, transitivity of choices is a benchmark for rational behavior. We argue that context should always be taken into account when discussing benchmarks. Using a series of simple mathematical tasks, we assessed participants’ responses against two criteria of rationality: transitivity and accuracy. In Study 1, the relation between the number of transitivity violations and the number of errors was best described by a reversed U-shaped function. This means that, as long as the participants use an adequate strategy and computational errors are merely accidental, transitivity violation positively relates to the number of errors. Otherwise, if the participants use an inadequate strategy that leads to systematic errors, transitivity violation negatively relates to the number of errors. We replicated these findings in Study 2. People can make decisions that comply with the transitivity criterion but are inaccurate; being erroneous, though transitive, does not make one’s behavior rational.</description><subject>Behavioral Science and Psychology</subject><subject>Benchmarks</subject><subject>Methods</subject><subject>Psychological research</subject><subject>Psychology</subject><subject>Rationality</subject><subject>Social Sciences</subject><issn>1046-1310</issn><issn>1936-4733</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2021</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><recordid>eNqN0l1r2zAUBmAzNljX9Q_0yjAY7ELd0Ydl6ap0ZesChUG7XQtFOUpUHCuT5LL2109ZBl0glOELG_l59WG_TXNK4YwC9B8zZVQIAlQTAKp68viiOaKaSyJ6zl_WZxCSUE7hdfMm57uKeqn1UXM-y21ZYVuSHXMo4T6Uhzb61q1icJhb225S3GBq12jzlHD7LtkS4miHSs_fNq-8HTKe_L0fNz--fP5--ZVcf7uaXV5cE9cBK4TOwYFgineAXDILHXRuzhUuQFhOvbJ8ztTCesnQc-l6ybT1Yr7gTlDWU37cvNvNW7fzc8JczF2cUt1ENqxTAKzXFJ5VVEnNlJTdk1raAU0Yfaynd-uQnbmQUjKlhd6uSA6oJY6Y7BBH9KEO7_mzA75eC1wHdzDwYS9QTcFfZWmnnM3s9ub_7aerffv-H7tCO5RVjsO0_Wl5H7IddCnmnNCbTQprmx4MBbOtldnVytRamT-1Mo81xHehXPG4xPT0iZ9J_QbcI8np</recordid><startdate>20210601</startdate><enddate>20210601</enddate><creator>Maroiu, Cristina</creator><creator>Maricuţoiu, Laurenţiu P.</creator><general>Springer US</general><general>Springer</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>IBG</scope><scope>ISR</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88G</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>M2M</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>PSYQQ</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8358-3130</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20210601</creationdate><title>Is the transitivity of choices a proper measure of rationality?</title><author>Maroiu, Cristina ; Maricuţoiu, Laurenţiu P.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c502t-1b0c0428350e362a0505cb38ed04a31f8a3b28daf62ef36c7629af4bd3c412713</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2021</creationdate><topic>Behavioral Science and Psychology</topic><topic>Benchmarks</topic><topic>Methods</topic><topic>Psychological research</topic><topic>Psychology</topic><topic>Rationality</topic><topic>Social Sciences</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Maroiu, Cristina</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Maricuţoiu, Laurenţiu P.</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Gale In Context: Biography</collection><collection>Gale In Context: Science</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Psychology Database (Alumni)</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>eLibrary</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Psychology Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>ProQuest One Psychology</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><jtitle>Current psychology (New Brunswick, N.J.)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Maroiu, Cristina</au><au>Maricuţoiu, Laurenţiu P.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Is the transitivity of choices a proper measure of rationality?</atitle><jtitle>Current psychology (New Brunswick, N.J.)</jtitle><stitle>Curr Psychol</stitle><date>2021-06-01</date><risdate>2021</risdate><volume>40</volume><issue>6</issue><spage>2654</spage><epage>2664</epage><pages>2654-2664</pages><issn>1046-1310</issn><eissn>1936-4733</eissn><abstract>According to normative rationality, transitivity of choices is a benchmark for rational behavior. We argue that context should always be taken into account when discussing benchmarks. Using a series of simple mathematical tasks, we assessed participants’ responses against two criteria of rationality: transitivity and accuracy. In Study 1, the relation between the number of transitivity violations and the number of errors was best described by a reversed U-shaped function. This means that, as long as the participants use an adequate strategy and computational errors are merely accidental, transitivity violation positively relates to the number of errors. Otherwise, if the participants use an inadequate strategy that leads to systematic errors, transitivity violation negatively relates to the number of errors. We replicated these findings in Study 2. People can make decisions that comply with the transitivity criterion but are inaccurate; being erroneous, though transitive, does not make one’s behavior rational.</abstract><cop>New York</cop><pub>Springer US</pub><doi>10.1007/s12144-019-00187-z</doi><tpages>11</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8358-3130</orcidid></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1046-1310
ispartof Current psychology (New Brunswick, N.J.), 2021-06, Vol.40 (6), p.2654-2664
issn 1046-1310
1936-4733
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_journals_2580027910
source SpringerLink Journals - AutoHoldings
subjects Behavioral Science and Psychology
Benchmarks
Methods
Psychological research
Psychology
Rationality
Social Sciences
title Is the transitivity of choices a proper measure of rationality?
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-08T07%3A40%3A29IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Is%20the%20transitivity%20of%20choices%20a%20proper%20measure%20of%20rationality?&rft.jtitle=Current%20psychology%20(New%20Brunswick,%20N.J.)&rft.au=Maroiu,%20Cristina&rft.date=2021-06-01&rft.volume=40&rft.issue=6&rft.spage=2654&rft.epage=2664&rft.pages=2654-2664&rft.issn=1046-1310&rft.eissn=1936-4733&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s12144-019-00187-z&rft_dat=%3Cgale_proqu%3EA666289491%3C/gale_proqu%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2186928665&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_galeid=A666289491&rfr_iscdi=true