State of the Art---Utility Assessment Methods
AbstractThis paper is a comprehensive study of methods for assessing unidimensional expected utility functions. The paper describes the utility assessment process in decision analysis and then reviews problem formulation, sources of bias in preference judgments, and the analysis of risk attitudes. Two dozen utility assessment methods of which half appear for the first time are critically examined. These methods are grouped into preference comparison methods, probability equivalence methods, value equivalence methods, certainty equivalence methods, hybrid methods, paired-gamble methods, and other approaches. The paper emphasizes the nature of judgmental biases in comparing different assessment procedures. Since most multiattribute utility functions are decomposed into single-attribute functions, this study should facilitate such applications. The paper concludes with several directions for further developmental, empirical, and applied research.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Bibliographic InfoArticle provided by INFORMS in its journal Management Science.
Volume (Year): 30 (1984)
Issue (Month): 11 (November)
utility; preference; estimation; decision analysis;
You can help add them by filling out this form.
CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
- Abdellaoui, Mohammed & Bleichrodt, Han, 2007. "Eliciting Gul's theory of disappointment aversion by the tradeoff method," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 28(6), pages 631-645, December.
- Schunk, Daniel & Betsch, Cornelia, 2006.
"Explaining heterogeneity in utility functions by individual differences in decision modes,"
Journal of Economic Psychology,
Elsevier, vol. 27(3), pages 386-401, June.
- Daniel Schunk, 2005. "Explaining heterogeneity in utility functions by individual differences in decision modes," MEA discussion paper series 05078, Munich Center for the Economics of Aging (MEA) at the Max Planck Institute for Social Law and Social Policy.
- Warneryd, Karl-Erik, 1996. "Risk attitudes and risky behavior," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 17(6), pages 749-770, December.
- Claude Le Pen, 1997. "Théorie de l'utilité et mesure des états de santé, le débat QALYs-HYEs," Économie et Prévision, Programme National Persée, vol. 129(3), pages 37-54.
- Ringuest, Jeffrey L. & Graves, Samuel B., 2000. "A sampling-based method for generating nondominated solutions in stochastic MOMP problems," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 126(3), pages 651-661, November.
- Morrison, Gwendolyn C., 1997. "HYE and TTO: What is the difference?," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 16(5), pages 563-578, October.
- Shackley, Phil & Cairns, John, 1996. "Evaluating the benefits of antenatal screening: an alternative approach," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 103-115, May.
- Stanciulescu, C. & Fortemps, Ph. & Installe, M. & Wertz, V., 2003. "Multiobjective fuzzy linear programming problems with fuzzy decision variables," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 149(3), pages 654-675, September.
- Mehrez, Abraham, 1997. "The interface between OR/MS and decision theory," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 99(1), pages 38-47, May.
- Krahnen, Jan Pieter & Rieck, Christian & Theissen, Erik, 1997. "Inferring risk attitudes from certainty equivalents: Some lessons from an experimental study," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 18(5), pages 469-486, September.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Mirko Janc).
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.