大多数人更喜欢候选人A而不是B, B而不是C，甚至是C而不是A。在这种情况下，相互冲突的大多数人从根本上是由不同的个体群体组成的。在这个图式中，有一种基于社会偏好的对个人偏好传递性的期望。这是作文谬误的一个典型例子。在这个图式中，孔多塞循环可以存在于没有明确的孔多塞赢家的情况下。它没有解释什么是社会决定或作出决定的适当方式。在这个模式中，有一些方法可以确定什么是最好的聚合首选项。对于这个答案，没有真正的答案。此外，没有完美的回应，因为没有什么是完美的(Dixit & Skeath, 2015)。这是社会选择理论最著名的典故之一。此外，在绿箭的不可能定理中也探讨了这一点。
在这个决策分析中，存在着利己主义和集体行动之间的混淆。参与者最终会意识到，如果他们在决策过程中选择与他人合作，他们的状态会更好。典型的困境是，这些各方选择为自身利益行事还是为集体行动行事。这是由于参与过程的双方之间缺乏信任造成的。这往往会导致集体行动问题。据观察，这个问题是集体行动所固有的。集体行动是指人们为了达到某种共同的目标而共同努力。这被认为是当个人不能为一个共同的目标或群体工作时。这是一种参与问题来实现目标。然而，当个人想要实现私利的目标时，问题就出现了(Dixit & Skeath, 2015)。有关各方忘记了共同的目标，试图集中在集体行动上。这些都是在囚徒困境中需要理解和理解集体行动的主要因素。在大多数情况下，这是一种尚未达到的微妙平衡。
Condorcet voting paradox is an interesting concept which is a part of the social choice theory. This is a situation that was theorized by Marquis de Condorcet. In the 18th century, there is the collective preference which is cyclic. In this preference, the individual voters are not considered to be cyclic. These are a paradox arrangement where the majority of the wishes of the people are in direct conflict with each other. The majority of the people prefer to have candidate A over B, B over C or even C over A. In this, the conflicting majorities of the people are fundamentally made from different groups of individuals. In this schema, there is the expectation of the transitivity of the individual preference which is based on the societal preference. This is a typical example of the fallacy of the composition. In this schema, Condorcet Cycles can exist in this situation there is no clear winner of the Condorcet winner. It does not explain as to what is the appropriate way for the societies to determine or make decisions. In this schema, there is some way for the aggregate preference as to what is best. To this answer, there is no real answer. Moreover, there is no perfect response as nothing is perfect (Dixit & Skeath, 2015). This is one of the most famous allusions of the social choice theory. In addition, this is explored in the Arrow’s Impossibility Theorem.
The role of the prisoner’s dilemma is considered to be a paradox. It is about the levels of trust that people have with each other in the group and how they relate with each other. In this decision analysis, there is the confusion between the self-interest and the collective action. Participants towards the end comprehend that they would have been in a better state if they had chosen to cooperate with other during the decision-making process. The typical dilemma is that these parties choose to act in self-interest or act for the collective action. This arises from the lack of trust between the two parties who are involved in the process. This often leads to the collective action problem. This problem is observed to be inherent to the collective action. The collective action is when the number of people work together to meet some common objective. This has been recognized as when the individuals fail to work for a common goal or group. It is a taking part in the problem to achieve the goal. However, the issues arise in this when the individuals want to achieve the goal for the self-interest (Dixit & Skeath, 2015). The parties involved forget about the common objective and try to focus on the collective action. These are the main factors which needs to be comprehended in prisoner dilemma and understand about collective action. This is a delicate balance which is yet to be achieved in most of the cases.