Linear Transformation of One-Dimensional Utility Functions: Empirical Study on the Impact on the Final Ranking of Alternatives in Personal Decisions

References

• Allais M (1953) Le comportement de l’homme rationnel devant le risque: Critique des postulats et axiomes de l’école américaine. Econom. J. Econom. Soc. 21(4):503–546.Google Scholar
• Anderson JR, Dillon JL, Hardaker B (1977) Agricultural Decision Analysis (Iowa State University Press, Iowa).Google Scholar
• André FJ, Riesgo L (2007) A non-interactive elicitation method for non-linear multiattribute utility functions: Theory and application to agricultural economics. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 181(2):793–807.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Baucells M, Carrasco JA, Hogarth RM (2008) Cumulative dominance and heuristic performance in binary multiattribute choice. Oper. Res. 56(5):1289–1304.Link, Google Scholar
• Bell DE, Raiffa H (1988) Marginal value and intrinsic risk aversion. Bell DE, Raiffa H, Tversky A, eds. Decision Making: Descriptive, Normative, and Prescriptive Interactions (Cambridge University Press, New York), 384–397.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Belton V, Stewart T (2002) Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis: An Integrated Approach (Springer Science & Business Media, Dordrecht, Netherlands).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bernoulli D (1954) Exposition of a new theory on the measurement of risk. Econometrica 22(1):23–36.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bleichrodt H, Pinto JL, Wakker PP (2001) Making descriptive use of prospect theory to improve the prescriptive use of expected utility. Management Sci. 47(11):1498–1514.Link, Google Scholar
• Bond SD, Carlson KA, Keeney RL (2008) Generating objectives: Can decision makers articulate what they want? Management Sci. 54(1):56–70.Link, Google Scholar
• Borgonovo E, Jose VRR, Knowlton M, Shachter R, Siebert JU, Ulu C (2025) Fifty years of decision analysis in operational research: A review. Eur. J. Oper. Res. Forthcoming.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Butler JC, Dyer JS, Jia J (2006) Using attributes to predict objectives in preference models. Decision Anal. 3(2):100–116.Link, Google Scholar
• Caballero WN, Naveiro R, Rios Insua D (2022) Modeling ethical and operational preferences in automated driving systems. Decision Anal. 19(1):21–43.Link, Google Scholar
• Chapman GB, Johnson EJ (1999) Anchoring, activation, and the construction of values. Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processes 79(2):115–153.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Corner JL, Corner PD (1995) Characteristics of decisions in decision analysis practice. J. Oper. Res. Soc. 46(3):304–314.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cyert RM, DeGroot MH (1975) Adaptive utility. Day RH, Groves T, eds. Adaptive Economic Models (Elsevier), 223–246.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Durbach IN, Stewart TJ (2012) A comparison of simplified value function approaches for treating uncertainty in multi-criteria decision analysis. Omega 40(4):456–464.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dyer JS, Sarin RK (1979) Measurable multiattribute value functions. Oper. Res. 27(4):810–822.Link, Google Scholar
• Dyer JS, Sarin RK (1982) Relative risk aversion. Management Sci. 28(8):875–886.Link, Google Scholar
• Dyer JS, Smith JE (2021) Innovations in the science and practice of decision analysis: The role of management science. Management Sci. 67(9):5364–5378.Link, Google Scholar
• Farquhar PH (1984) State of the art—Utility assessment methods. Management Sci. 30(11):1283–1300.Link, Google Scholar
• Fishburn PC (1965) Analysis of decisions with incomplete knowledge of probabilities. Oper. Res. 13(2):217–237.Link, Google Scholar
• Guo S, Xu H (2021) Statistical robustness in utility preference robust optimization models. Math. Programming 190(1):679–720.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hannes C, von Nitzsch R (2024) A systematic approach to problem formulation in a decision support system. Internat. J. Decision Support. Systems 5(1):14–29.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hershey JC, Schoemaker PJ (1985) Probability versus certainty equivalence methods in utility measurement: Are they equivalent? Management Sci. 31(10):1213–1231.Link, Google Scholar
• Hershey JC, Kunreuther HC, Paul JHS (1982) Sources of bias in assessment procedures for utility functions. Management Sci. 28(8):936–954.Link, Google Scholar
• Johnson EJ, Schkade DA (1989) Bias in utility assessments: Further evidence and explanations. Management Sci. 35(4):406–424.Link, Google Scholar
• Kahneman D, Tversky A (2013) Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. MacLean LC, Ziemba WT, eds. Handbook of the Fundamentals of Financial Decision Making: Part I (World Scientific), 99–127.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Katsikopoulos KV, Durbach IN, Stewart TJ (2018) When should we use simple decision models? A synthesis of various research strands. Omega 81:17–25.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Katsikopoulos KV, Egozcue M, Garcia LF (2014) Cumulative dominance in multi-attribute choice: Benefits and limits. EURO J. Decision Processes 2(1–2):153–163.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Keeney RL (1972) An illustrated procedure for assessing multiattributed utility functions. Sloan Management Rev. 14(1):37.Google Scholar
• Keeney RL (1977) The art of assessing multiattribute utility functions. Organ. Behav. Human Performance 19(2):267–310.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Keeney RL (1982) Decision analysis: An overview. Oper. Res. 30(5):803–838.Link, Google Scholar
• Keeney RL (1992) Value-Focused Thinking: A Path to Creative Decisionmaking (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA).Google Scholar
• Keeney RL, Gregory RS (2005) Selecting attributes to measure the achievement of objectives. Oper. Res. 53(1):1–11.Link, Google Scholar
• Keeney RL, Raiffa H (1976) Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Trade-Offs (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK).Google Scholar
• Keeney RL, von Winterfeldt D (2007) Practical value models. Edwards W, Miles RF Jr, von Winterfeldt D, eds. Advances in Decision Analysis: From Foundations to Applications (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK), 232–252.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Krzysztofowicz R (1983) Strength of preference and risk attitude in utility measurement. Organ. Behav. Human Performance 31(1):88–113.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lahdelma R, Salminen P (2012) The shape of the utility or value function in stochastic multicriteria acceptability analysis. OR Spectrum 34:785–802.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Levin IP, Schneider SL, Gaeth GJ (1998) All frames are not created equal: A typology and critical analysis of framing effects. Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processes 76(2):149–188.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Liesiö J, Vilkkumaa E (2021) Nonadditive multiattribute utility functions for portfolio decision analysis. Oper. Res. 69(6):1886–1908.Link, Google Scholar
• McCord M, De Neufville R (1986) “Lottery equivalents”: Reduction of the certainty effect problem in utility assessment. Management Sci. 32(1):56–60.Link, Google Scholar
• Methling F, Abdeen SJ, von Nitzsch R (2022) Heuristics in multi-criteria decision-making: The cost of fast and frugal decisions. EURO J. Decision Processes 10:100013.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Montibeller G, von Winterfeldt D (2015) Cognitive and motivational biases in decision and risk analysis. Risk Anal. 35(7):1230–1251.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Pennings JM, Smidts A (2003) The shape of utility functions and organizational behavior. Management Sci. 49(9):1251–1263.Link, Google Scholar
• Peters S, Tönsfeuerborn M, von Nitzsch R (2024) Integrating uncertainties in a multi-criteria decision analysis with the Entscheidungsnavi. Mathematics 12(11):1746.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Pratt JW (1964) Risk aversion in the small and in the large. Econometrica 32(1/2):122–136.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Pratt JW, Raiffa H, Schlaifer R (1964) The foundations of decision under uncertainty: An elementary exposition. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. 59(306):353–375.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Schoemaker PJ, Hershey JC (1992) Utility measurement: Signal, noise, and bias. Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processes 52(3):397–424.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Siebert J, Keeney RL (2015) Creating more and better alternatives for decisions using objectives. Oper. Res. 63(5):1144–1158.Link, Google Scholar
• Siebert JU, von Nitzsch R (2020) The job selection problem for career starters: A decision-theoretical application. Part 1: Structuring the problem into objectives, alternatives and uncertainties. Wirtschaftswiss. Stud. 1–7.Google Scholar
• Şimşek Ö (2013) Linear decision rule as aspiration for simple decision heuristics. Burges CJ, Bottou L, Welling M, Ghahramani Z, Weinberger KQ, eds. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 26 (Curran Associates Inc., Red Hook, NY), 2904–2912.Google Scholar
• Slovic P, Finucane ML, Peters E, MacGregor DG (2004) Risk as analysis and risk as feelings: Some thoughts about affect, reason, risk, and rationality. Slovic P, ed. The Feeling of Risk (Routledge, London), 21–36.Google Scholar
• Smidts A (1997) The relationship between risk attitude and strength of preference: A test of intrinsic risk attitude. Management Sci. 43(3):357–370.Link, Google Scholar
• Stewart TJ (1993) Use of piecewise linear value functions in interactive multicriteria decision support: A Monte Carlo study. Management Sci. 39(11):1369–1381.Link, Google Scholar
• Stewart TJ (1995) Simplified approaches for multicriteria decision making under uncertainty. J. Multi‐Criteria Decision Anal. 4(4):246–258.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Stewart TJ (1996) Robustness of additive value function methods in MCDM. J. Multi‐Criteria Decision Anal. 5(4):301–309.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Toffano F, Garraffa M, Lin Y, Prestwich S, Simonis H, Wilson N (2022) A multi-objective supplier selection framework based on user-preferences. Ann. Oper. Res. 308(1):609–640.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Vilela MJ, Oluyemi GF (2022) Utility theory. Value of Information and Flexibility: Making Decisions Under Uncertainties (Springer, Cham, Switzerland), 21–51.Crossref, Google Scholar
• von Neumann J, Morgenstern O (1961) Spieltheorie Und Wirtschaftliches Verhalten (Physica-Verlag, Heidelberg, Germany).Google Scholar
• von Nitzsch R (2024) Entscheidungslehre: Wie Menschen Entscheiden Und Wie Sie Entscheiden Sollten (Springer-Verlag, Wiesbaden, Germany).Crossref, Google Scholar
• von Nitzsch R, Siebert JU (2018) The job selection problem for career starters: A decision-theoretical application part 2: Identifying the best alternative using the Entscheidungsnavi. Wirtschaftswiss. Stud. 47(11):4–11.Crossref, Google Scholar
• von Nitzsch R, Weber M (1988) Utility function assessment on a micro-computer: An interactive procedure. Ann. Oper. Res. 16:149–160.Crossref, Google Scholar
• von Nitzsch R, Tönsfeuerborn M, Siebert JU (2020) Decision skill training with the Entscheidungsnavi. Teixeira de Almeida A, Costa Morais D, eds. Innovation Systems Inform. Decision (Springer, Cham, Switzerland), 15–30.Crossref, Google Scholar
• von Winterfeldt D (1999) On the relevance of behavioral decision research for decision analysis. Shanteau J, Mellers BA, Schum DA, eds. Decision Science and Technology: Reflections on the Contributions of Ward Edwards (Springer, New York), 133–154.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wakker P, Deneffe D (1996) Eliciting von Neumann–Morgenstern utilities when probabilities are distorted or unknown. Management Sci. 42(8):1131–1150.Link, Google Scholar
• Weber M (1987) Decision making with incomplete information. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 28(1):44–57.Crossref, Google Scholar