Skip to main content
Log in

A general concept of scoring rules: general definitions, statistical inference, and empirical illustrations

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Social Choice and Welfare Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We develop the general conceptual, mathematical and statistical foundations of behavioral social choice for scoring rules. Traditional scoring rules are difficult to assess empirically because one rarely observes the deterministic complete linear orders that they require as input. We provide a general concept of scoring rules in terms of a broad range of mathematical representations of preference or utility, namely arbitrary finite binary relations, probability distributions over such relations, real valued multi-criteria utility vectors and real valued random utility representations. We extend Regenwetter et al.’s (Behavioral social choice. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2006) statistical framework to a more general setting. We illustrate the general modeling and statistical tools by applying them to four well known sets of survey data. We illustrate two potential problems that have previously received little attention and that deserve systematic study in the future: (1) Scoring rule outcomes can suffer from model dependence in that the social welfare functions computed from ballot, survey, or hypothetical data may depend on implicit or explicit modeling assumptions. (2) Scoring rule outcomes may suffer from low statistical confidence in that the correct assessment of social orders from empirical data can be far from certain. We also illustrate the empirical congruence among conceptually competing social choice methods.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Arrow KJ (1951) Social choice and individual values. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Block HD, Marschak J (1960) Random orderings and stochastic theories of responses. In: Olkin I, Ghurye S, Hoeffding H, Madow W, Mann H (eds) Contributions to probability and statistics. Stanford University Press, Stanford, pp 97–132

    Google Scholar 

  • Chamberlin JR, Cohen JL, Coombs CH (1984) Social choice observed: Five presidential elections of the American Psychological Association. J Politics 46:479–502

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dobra J (1983) An approach to empirical studies of voting paradoxes: an update and extension. Public Choice 41:241–250

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feld SL, Grofman B (1986) On the possibility of faithfully representative committees. Am Poli Sci Rev 80:863–879

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feld SL, Grofman B (1988) Ideological consistency as a collective phenomenon. Am Polit Sci Rev 83:773–788

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fishburn PC (1985) Interval orders and interval graphs. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilovich T, Griffin D, Kahneman D (eds) (2002) Heuristics and biases: the psychology of intuitive judgment. Cambridge University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Harary F (1969) Graph theory. Addison-Wesley, Reading

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman D, Slovic P, Tversky A (1982) Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman D, Tversky A (1979) Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica 47:263–291

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman D, Tversky A (eds) (2000) Choices, values, and frames. Cambridge University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Luce RD (1956) Semiorders and a theory of utility discrimination. Econometrica 26:178–191

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luce RD (2000) Utility of gains and losses: measurement-theoretical and experimental approaches. Erlbaum, Mahwah

    Google Scholar 

  • Marchant T (2000) Does the Borda rule provide more than a ranking? Social Choice Welf 17:381–391

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mueller DC (2003) Public choice III. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Niederée R, Heyer D (1997) Generalized random utility models and the representational theory of measurement: a conceptual link. In: Marley AAJ (ed) Choice, decision and measurement: essays in honor of R. Duncan Luce. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, pp 155–189

    Google Scholar 

  • Regenwetter M, Grofman B, Marley AAJ, Tsetlin I (2006) Behavioral social choice. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Regenwetter M, Kim A, Kantor A, Ho M-H (in press) The unexpected empirical consensus among consensus methods. Psychol. Sci.

  • Regenwetter M, Rykhlevskaia E (2004) On the (numerical) ranking associated with any finite binary relation. J Math Psychol 48:239–246

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Regenwetter M, Tsetlin I (2004) Approval voting and positional voting methods: inference, relationship, examples. Social Choice Welf 22:539–566

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Riker WH (1982) Liberalism against populism. W. H. Freeman, San Fransisco

    Google Scholar 

  • Roberts FS (1979) Measurement theory. Addison-Wesley, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Saari DG (1995) Basic geometry of voting. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Saari DG (2001) Chaotic elections! a mathematician looks at voting. American Mathematical Society

  • Sapiro V, Rosenstone SJ, Miller WE (1998) American national election studies, 1948–1997. Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research, Ann Arbor

  • Tullock G (1981) Why so much stability? Public Choice 37(2):189–202

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Young HP (1974) An axiomatization of Borda’s rule. J Econ Theory 9:43–52

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michel Regenwetter.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Regenwetter, M., Rykhlevskaia, E. A general concept of scoring rules: general definitions, statistical inference, and empirical illustrations. Soc Choice Welfare 29, 211–228 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00355-006-0204-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00355-006-0204-1

Keywords

Navigation