IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ejores/v295y2021i3p1042-1055.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A novel version of the TODIM method based on the exponential model of prospect theory: The ExpTODIM method

Author

Listed:
  • Leoneti, Alexandre Bevilacqua
  • Gomes, Luiz Flavio Autran Monteiro

Abstract

The adherence of the TODIM method and its variations, including two new versions of TODIM with the use of the exponential and logarithmic functions, to prospect theory was compared based on performance indicators with a very frequently used MCDM method, namely TOPSIS and its variation, Behavioral TOPSIS. It was hypothesized that the use of methods with mathematical models more adherent to prospect theory would provide more accurate predictions of individual decision making. A hundred students from the University of São Paulo in Ribeirão Preto were invited to participate in a field study where three different cases should be solved without the support of any method. Then, performance indicators were used to evaluate the prediction capacity of the methods with the ones provided by the volunteers, having the TODIM method with the new mathematical function presented in this paper, hereafter named Exponential TODIM (ExpTODIM), reached the best scores in all three performance indicators. The main contribution of the present paper is the proposal of a novel version of TODIM method that fits among the low implementation complexity multicriteria methods with high predictive power, since it is based on a value function that is more adherent to prospect theory.

Suggested Citation

  • Leoneti, Alexandre Bevilacqua & Gomes, Luiz Flavio Autran Monteiro, 2021. "A novel version of the TODIM method based on the exponential model of prospect theory: The ExpTODIM method," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 295(3), pages 1042-1055.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ejores:v:295:y:2021:i:3:p:1042-1055
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ejor.2021.03.055
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0377221721002812
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ejor.2021.03.055?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. Marc Rieger & Mei Wang, 2006. "Cumulative prospect theory and the St. Petersburg paradox," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 28(3), pages 665-679, August.
    2. Tversky, Amos & Kahneman, Daniel, 1992. "Advances in Prospect Theory: Cumulative Representation of Uncertainty," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 5(4), pages 297-323, October.
    3. Walczak, Dariusz & Rutkowska, Aleksandra, 2017. "Project rankings for participatory budget based on the fuzzy TOPSIS method," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 260(2), pages 706-714.
    4. Nazanin Vafaei & Rita A. Ribeiro & Luis M. Camarinha-Matos, 2018. "Data normalisation techniques in decision making: case study with TOPSIS method," International Journal of Information and Decision Sciences, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 10(1), pages 19-38.
    5. Dillenberger, David & Vijay Krishna, R., 2014. "Expected utility without bounds—A simple proof," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 143-147.
    6. Yvan Lengwiler, 2009. "The Origins of Expected Utility Theory," Springer Books, in: Wolfgang Hafner & Heinz Zimmermann (ed.), Vinzenz Bronzin’s Option Pricing Models, chapter 20, pages 535-545, Springer.
    7. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    8. F. Hutton Barron & Bruce E. Barrett, 1996. "Decision Quality Using Ranked Attribute Weights," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 42(11), pages 1515-1523, November.
    9. Athanasios Kolios & Varvara Mytilinou & Estivaliz Lozano-Minguez & Konstantinos Salonitis, 2016. "A Comparative Study of Multiple-Criteria Decision-Making Methods under Stochastic Inputs," Energies, MDPI, vol. 9(7), pages 1-21, July.
    10. Marc Scholten & Daniel Read, 2014. "Prospect theory and the “forgotten” fourfold pattern of risk preferences," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 48(1), pages 67-83, February.
    11. Bernard Roy & Roman Slowinski, 2013. "Questions guiding the choice of a multicriteria decision aiding method," Post-Print hal-00874292, HAL.
    12. Yuan-Sheng Lee & Hsu-Shih Shih, 2016. "Incremental analysis for generalized TODIM," Central European Journal of Operations Research, Springer;Slovak Society for Operations Research;Hungarian Operational Research Society;Czech Society for Operations Research;Österr. Gesellschaft für Operations Research (ÖGOR);Slovenian Society Informatika - Section for Operational Research;Croatian Operational Research Society, vol. 24(4), pages 901-922, December.
    13. Autran Monteiro Gomes, Luiz Flávio & Duncan Rangel, LuI´s Alberto, 2009. "An application of the TODIM method to the multicriteria rental evaluation of residential properties," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 193(1), pages 204-211, February.
    14. Enrico Giorgi & Thorsten Hens, 2006. "Making prospect theory fit for finance," Financial Markets and Portfolio Management, Springer;Swiss Society for Financial Market Research, vol. 20(3), pages 339-360, September.
    15. Zanakis, Stelios H. & Solomon, Anthony & Wishart, Nicole & Dublish, Sandipa, 1998. "Multi-attribute decision making: A simulation comparison of select methods," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 107(3), pages 507-529, June.
    16. Yaniv, Ilan & Milyavsky, Maxim, 2007. "Using advice from multiple sources to revise and improve judgments," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 103(1), pages 104-120, May.
    17. Joost M.E. Pennings & Philip Garcia, 2009. "The informational content of the shape of utility functions: financial strategic behavior," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 30(2), pages 83-90.
    18. Llamazares, Bonifacio, 2018. "An analysis of the generalized TODIM method," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 269(3), pages 1041-1049.
    19. repec:hal:wpaper:hal-00874292 is not listed on IDEAS
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Alexandre Bevilacqua Leoneti & René Bañares-Alcántara & Eduardo Cleto Pires & Sonia Valle Walter Borges Oliveira, 2022. "A Multi-Criteria and Multi-Agent Framework for supporting complex decision-making processes," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 31(5), pages 1025-1050, October.
    2. Xiao-Kang Wang & Wen-Hui Hou & Chao Song & Min-Hui Deng & Yong-Yi Li & Jian-Qiang Wang, 2021. "BW-MaxEnt: A Novel MCDM Method for Limited Knowledge," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 9(14), pages 1-17, July.
    3. Liu, Fan & Liao, Huchang & Al-Barakati, Abdullah, 2023. "Physician selection based on user-generated content considering interactive criteria and risk preferences of patients," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 115(C).
    4. Zhao, Meng & Xu, Chang & Zhao, Wenxian & Lin, Mingwei, 2023. "New energy vehicle online selection method considering attribute compensation relationship and aspiration strength," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 75(C).
    5. Kubińska, Elżbieta & Adamczyk-Kowalczuk, Magdalena & Andrzejewski, Mariusz & Rozakis, Stelios, 2022. "Incorporating the status quo effect into the decision making process: The case of municipal companies merger," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 84(C).
    6. Leoneti, Alexandre Bevilacqua & Gomes, Luiz Flavio Autran Monteiro, 2021. "Modeling multicriteria group decision making as games from enhanced pairwise comparisons," Operations Research Perspectives, Elsevier, vol. 8(C).

    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. Leoneti, Alexandre Bevilacqua & Gomes, Luiz Flavio Autran Monteiro, 2021. "Modeling multicriteria group decision making as games from enhanced pairwise comparisons," Operations Research Perspectives, Elsevier, vol. 8(C).
    2. Azevedo, Eduardo M. & Gottlieb, Daniel, 2012. "Risk-neutral firms can extract unbounded profits from consumers with prospect theory preferences," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 147(3), pages 1291-1299.
    3. Llamazares, Bonifacio, 2018. "An analysis of the generalized TODIM method," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 269(3), pages 1041-1049.
    4. Marie Pfiffelmann, 2011. "Solving the St. Petersburg Paradox in cumulative prospect theory: the right amount of probability weighting," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 71(3), pages 325-341, September.
    5. Paredes-Frigolett, Harold, 2016. "Modeling the effect of responsible research and innovation in quadruple helix innovation systems," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 126-133.
    6. Patrick Afflerbach, 2015. "The Business Value of IT in Light of Prospect Theory," Business & Information Systems Engineering: The International Journal of WIRTSCHAFTSINFORMATIK, Springer;Gesellschaft für Informatik e.V. (GI), vol. 57(5), pages 299-310, October.
    7. Basieva, Irina & Khrennikova, Polina & Pothos, Emmanuel M. & Asano, Masanari & Khrennikov, Andrei, 2018. "Quantum-like model of subjective expected utility," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 150-162.
    8. Bernard, Carole & Chen, Jit Seng & Vanduffel, Steven, 2015. "Rationalizing investors’ choices," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 10-23.
    9. 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.
    10. Bouchouicha, Ranoua & Martinsson, Peter & Medhin, Haileselassie & Vieider, Ferdinand M., 2017. "Stake effects on ambiguity attitudes for gains and losses," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 83(1), pages 19-35.
    11. Kim Kaivanto & Eike Kroll, 2014. "Alternation bias and reduction in St. Petersburg gambles," Working Papers 65600286, Lancaster University Management School, Economics Department.
    12. Massimiliano Kaucic & Filippo Piccotto & Gabriele Sbaiz & Giorgio Valentinuz, 2023. "Optimal Portfolio with Sustainable Attitudes under Cumulative Prospect Theory," Journal of Applied Finance & Banking, SCIENPRESS Ltd, vol. 13(4), pages 1-4.
    13. Wang, Qian & Sundberg, Marcus & Karlström, Anders, 2013. "Scheduling choices under rank dependent utility maximization," Working papers in Transport Economics 2013:16, CTS - Centre for Transport Studies Stockholm (KTH and VTI).
    14. Markus Dertwinkel-Kalt & Mats Köster, 2020. "Salience and Skewness Preferences [Risk-neutral Firms can Extract Unbounded Profits from Consumers with Prospect Theory Preferences]," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 18(5), pages 2057-2107.
    15. Galarza, Francisco, 2009. "Choices under Risk in Rural Peru," MPRA Paper 17708, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    16. Georgalos, Konstantinos & Paya, Ivan & Peel, David A., 2021. "On the contribution of the Markowitz model of utility to explain risky choice in experimental research," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 182(C), pages 527-543.
    17. Gerda Ana Melnik-Leroy & Gintautas Dzemyda, 2021. "How to Influence the Results of MCDM?—Evidence of the Impact of Cognitive Biases," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 9(2), pages 1-25, January.
    18. James C. Cox & Eike B. Kroll & Marcel Lichters & Vjollca Sadiraj & Bodo Vogt, 2019. "The St. Petersburg paradox despite risk-seeking preferences: an experimental study," Business Research, Springer;German Academic Association for Business Research, vol. 12(1), pages 27-44, April.
    19. Francesco Ciardiello & Andrea Genovese, 2023. "A comparison between TOPSIS and SAW methods," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 325(2), pages 967-994, June.
    20. Salvatore Greco & Fabio Rindone, 2014. "The bipolar Choquet integral representation," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 77(1), pages 1-29, June.

    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:eee:ejores:v:295:y:2021:i:3:p:1042-1055. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/eor .

    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.