IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ordeca/v1y2004i4p217-234.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Anchor Levels as a New Tool for the Theory and Measurement of Multiattribute Utility

Author

Listed:
  • Peter P. Wakker

    () (Medical Decision Making Department, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands)

  • Sylvia J. T. Jansen

    () (Medical Decision Making Department, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands)

  • Anne M. Stiggelbout

    () (Medical Decision Making Department, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands)

Abstract

This paper introduces anchor levels as a new tool for multiattribute utility theory. Anchor levels are attribute levels whose values are not affected by other attributes. They allow for new interpretations and generalizations of known representations and utility measurement techniques. Generalizations of earlier techniques can be obtained because cases with complex interactions between attributes can now be handled. Anchor levels serve not only to enhance the generality, but also the tractability, of utility measurements, because stimuli can better be targeted toward the perception and real situation of clients. In an application, anchor levels were applied to the measurement of quality of life during radiotherapy treatment, where there are complex interactions with what happens before and after. Using anchor levels, the measurements could be related exactly to the situation of the clients, thus simplifying the clients' cognitive burden.

Suggested Citation

  • Peter P. Wakker & Sylvia J. T. Jansen & Anne M. Stiggelbout, 2004. "Anchor Levels as a New Tool for the Theory and Measurement of Multiattribute Utility," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 1(4), pages 217-234, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:inm:ordeca:v:1:y:2004:i:4:p:217-234
    DOI: 10.1287/deca.1040.0028
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/deca.1040.0028
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Drazen Prelec & George Loewenstein, 1991. "Decision Making Over Time and Under Uncertainty: A Common Approach," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 37(7), pages 770-786, July.
    2. Yew-Kwang Ng, 1999. "Utility, informed preference, or happiness: Following Harsanyi's argument to its logical conclusion," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 16(2), pages 197-216.
    3. Karni, Edi, 1996. "Probabilities and Beliefs," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 13(3), pages 249-262, November.
    4. Edi Karni & Philippe Mongin, 2000. "On the Determination of Subjective Probability by Choices," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 46(2), pages 233-248, February.
    5. Peter C. Fishburn, 1965. "Independence in Utility Theory with Whole Product Sets," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 13(1), pages 28-45, February.
    6. Johnston, Katharine & Brown, Jackie & Gerard, Karen & O'Hanlon, Moira & Morton, Alison, 1998. "Valuing temporary and chronic health states associated with breast screening," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 47(2), pages 213-222, July.
    7. Scott F. Richard, 1975. "Multivariate Risk Aversion, Utility Independence and Separable Utility Functions," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(1), pages 12-21, September.
    8. Rubin Herman, 1987. "A Weak System Of Axioms For "Rational" Behavior And The Nonseparability Of Utility From Prior," Statistics & Risk Modeling, De Gruyter, vol. 5(1-2), pages 47-58, February.
    9. Karni, Edi & Schmeidler, David, 1993. "On the Uniqueness of Subjective Probabilities," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 3(2), pages 267-277, April.
    10. George J. Stigler, 1950. "The Development of Utility Theory. II," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 58, pages 373-373.
    11. Joseph S. Pliskin & Donald S. Shepard & Milton C. Weinstein, 1980. "Utility Functions for Life Years and Health Status," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 28(1), pages 206-224, February.
    12. Timothy L. McDaniels, 1995. "Using Judgment in Resource Management: A Multiple Objective Analysis of a Fisheries Management Decision," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 43(3), pages 415-426, June.
    13. Han Bleichrodt & John Miyamoto, 2003. "A Characterization of Quality-Adjusted Life-Years Under Cumulative Prospect Theory," Mathematics of Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 28(1), pages 181-193, February.
    14. Karni, Edi, 1999. "Elicitation of Subjective Probabilities When Preferences Are State-Dependent," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 40(2), pages 479-486, May.
    15. Peter H. Farquhar & Peter C. Fishburn, 1981. "Equivalences and Continuity in Multivalent Preference Structures," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 29(2), pages 282-293, April.
    16. Horst Zank, 2001. "Cumulative Prospect Theory for Parametric and Multiattribute Utilities," Mathematics of Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 26(1), pages 67-81, February.
    17. Nau, Robert F, 1995. "Coherent Decision Analysis with Inseparable Probabilities and Utilities," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 10(1), pages 71-91, January.
    18. Torrance, George W., 1986. "Measurement of health state utilities for economic appraisal : A review," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 5(1), pages 1-30, March.
    19. Karni Edi, 1993. "Subjective Expected Utility Theory with State-Dependent Preferences," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 60(2), pages 428-438, August.
    20. A. J. Culyer & J. P. Newhouse (ed.), 2000. "Handbook of Health Economics," Handbook of Health Economics, Elsevier, edition 1, volume 1, number 1, 00.
    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. L. Robin Keller, 2010. "From the Editor..," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 7(3), pages 235-237, September.

    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:inm:ordeca:v:1:y:2004:i:4:p:217-234. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Matthew Walls). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.html .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.