IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/grdene/v10y2001i2d10.1023_a1008795331134.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Risk Attitudes Appraisal and Cognitive Coordination in Decentralized Decision Systems

Author

Listed:
  • Bertrand Munier

    (Ecole Normale Supérieure de Cachan)

Abstract

In decentralized decisions systems, coordination and efficiency encounter major difficulties. To solve the problem, it is argued, the analyst needs to raise a cognitive representation question, in particular the question of the criteria according to which the problem at hand is being assessed in view of the whole organization. This, in turn, raises the issue of how these criteria are evaluated by the different individuals. An example based on a subset of the risk management system, namely the maintenance system in nuclear power plants, is used throughout the text. The paper argues that generalizing MAUT to rank dependent risk treatment is of utmost importance in order to deal with such problems. One additional theorem is proved in that perspective and an appropriate software reported upon and illustrated on an example. Beyond the technical problems examined in the paper, the way to use the decision analysis framework is discussed.

Suggested Citation

  • Bertrand Munier, 2001. "Risk Attitudes Appraisal and Cognitive Coordination in Decentralized Decision Systems," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 10(2), pages 141-158, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:grdene:v:10:y:2001:i:2:d:10.1023_a:1008795331134
    DOI: 10.1023/A:1008795331134
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1023/A:1008795331134
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1023/A:1008795331134?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Mark McCord & Richard de Neufville, 1986. ""Lottery Equivalents": Reduction of the Certainty Effect Problem in Utility Assessment," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 32(1), pages 56-60, January.
    2. Melvin F. Shakun, 1975. "Policy Making Under Discontinuous Change: The Situational Normativism Approach," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(2), pages 226-235, October.
    3. Harless, David W & Camerer, Colin F, 1994. "The Predictive Utility of Generalized Expected Utility Theories," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 62(6), pages 1251-1289, November.
    4. Denis Bouyssou & Jean-Claude Vansnick, 1990. "« Utilité cardinale » dans le certain et choix dans le risque," Revue Économique, Programme National Persée, vol. 41(6), pages 979-1000.
    5. Harless, David W., 1992. "Predictions about indifference curves inside the unit triangle : A test of variants of expected utility theory," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 18(3), pages 391-414, August.
    6. John D. Hey & Chris Orme, 2018. "Investigating Generalizations Of Expected Utility Theory Using Experimental Data," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Experiments in Economics Decision Making and Markets, chapter 3, pages 63-98, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    7. Fishburn, P. C., 1984. "Dominance in SSB utility theory," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 34(1), pages 130-148, October.
    8. M. Abdellaoui & B. Munier, 1998. "The risk-structure dependence effect:Experimenting with an eye to decision-aiding," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 80(0), pages 237-252, January.
    9. John M. Miyamoto & Peter Wakker, 1996. "Multiattribute Utility Theory Without Expected Utility Foundations," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 44(2), pages 313-326, April.
    10. Peter C. Fishburn, 1984. "Multiattribute Nonlinear Utility Theory," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 30(11), pages 1301-1310, November.
    11. Camerer, Colin F, 1989. "An Experimental Test of Several Generalized Utility Theories," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 2(1), pages 61-104, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Peter Brooks & Simon Peters & Horst Zank, 2014. "Risk behavior for gain, loss, and mixed prospects," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 77(2), pages 153-182, August.
    2. Pavlo Blavatskyy, 2006. "Error Propagation in the Elicitation of Utility and Probability Weighting Functions," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 60(2), pages 315-334, May.
    3. Krzysztof Kontek & Michal Lewandowski, 2018. "Range-Dependent Utility," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(6), pages 2812-2832, June.
    4. Charles Mason & Jason Shogren & Chad Settle & John List, 2005. "Investigating Risky Choices Over Losses Using Experimental Data," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 31(2), pages 187-215, September.
    5. David Buschena & David Zilberman, 1999. "Testing the Effects of Similarity on Risky Choice: Implications for Violations of Expected Utility," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 46(3), pages 253-280, June.
    6. Chris Starmer, 2000. "Developments in Non-expected Utility Theory: The Hunt for a Descriptive Theory of Choice under Risk," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 38(2), pages 332-382, June.
    7. Krzysztof Kontek, 2018. "Boundary effects in the Marschak-Machina triangle," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 13(6), pages 587-606, November.
    8. repec:cup:judgdm:v:13:y:2018:i:6:p:587-606 is not listed on IDEAS
    9. Mohammed Abdellaoui, 2000. "Parameter-Free Elicitation of Utility and Probability Weighting Functions," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 46(11), pages 1497-1512, November.
    10. Peter Brooks & Horst Zank, 2005. "Loss Averse Behavior," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 31(3), pages 301-325, December.
    11. Simone Cerreia‐Vioglio & David Dillenberger & Pietro Ortoleva, 2015. "Cautious Expected Utility and the Certainty Effect," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 83, pages 693-728, March.
    12. Jakusch, Sven Thorsten, 2017. "On the applicability of maximum likelihood methods: From experimental to financial data," SAFE Working Paper Series 148, Leibniz Institute for Financial Research SAFE, revised 2017.
    13. 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.
    14. Guido Baltussen & G. Post & Martijn Assem & Peter Wakker, 2012. "Random incentive systems in a dynamic choice experiment," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 15(3), pages 418-443, September.
    15. Amit Kothiyal & Vitalie Spinu & Peter Wakker, 2014. "An experimental test of prospect theory for predicting choice under ambiguity," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 48(1), pages 1-17, February.
    16. Berg, Joyce E. & Dickhaut, John W. & Rietz, Thomas A., 2010. "Preference reversals: The impact of truth-revealing monetary incentives," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 68(2), pages 443-468, March.
    17. Jakusch, Sven Thorsten & Meyer, Steffen & Hackethal, Andreas, 2019. "Taming models of prospect theory in the wild? Estimation of Vlcek and Hens (2011)," SAFE Working Paper Series 146, Leibniz Institute for Financial Research SAFE, revised 2019.
    18. John D. Hey, 2018. "Why We Should Not Be Silent About Noise," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Experiments in Economics Decision Making and Markets, chapter 13, pages 309-329, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    19. Blavatskyy, Pavlo R., 2006. "Violations of betweenness or random errors?," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 91(1), pages 34-38, April.
    20. Kontek, Krzysztof, 2015. "Fanning-Out or Fanning-In? Continuous or Discontinuous? Estimating Indifference Curves Inside the Marschak-Machina Triangle using Certainty Equivalents," MPRA Paper 63965, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    21. Egil Matsen & Bjarne Strøm, 2006. "Joker: Choice in a simple game with large stakes," Working Paper Series 8307, Department of Economics, Norwegian University of Science and Technology.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:grdene:v:10:y:2001:i:2:d:10.1023_a:1008795331134. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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 CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc 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 RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.