IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ordeca/v23y2026i1p46-64.html

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

Author

Listed:
  • Mendy Tönsfeuerborn

    (Decision Theory and Financial Services, Rheinisch-Westfälische Technische Hochschule Aachen University, 52062 Aachen, Germany)

  • Rüdiger von Nitzsch

    (Decision Theory and Financial Services, Rheinisch-Westfälische Technische Hochschule Aachen University, 52062 Aachen, Germany)

  • Johannes Ulrich Siebert

    (Business and Management, Management Centre Innsbruck Internationale Bildung und Wissenschaft GmbH, 6020 Innsbruck, Austria)

Abstract

Determining one-dimensional utility functions for each objective in multiattribute utility theory takes time and effort from decision makers. They must consider including a decreasing or increasing marginal utility and/or their relative risk attitude, resulting in a nonlinear shape. This assessment is prone to errors and distortions. We analyze to what extent a linear transformation of one-dimensional utility functions compromises the quality of the decision. Therefore, we examine the impact of one-dimensional utility functions on the final ranking of alternatives in practice, focusing on three aspects: the use of (non)linear utility functions, their impact on the ranking of alternatives, and the stability of best alternatives concerning utility differences of alternatives assuming linear transformation. We examine 2,536 carefully modeled personal decisions analyzed by students with the decision support tool E ntscheidungsnavi . Our results show that 95.9% of the participants used at least one nonlinear utility function in their decision, and 76.4% of all objectives were evaluated with nonlinear utility functions. Simplifying preference-accurate utility functions with linearization led to a rank reversal of the best alternative in 15.5% of the decisions. The top-three set of alternatives changed in 14% of the decisions. In 98.8% of the decisions, the best alternative could be found in the top three alternatives ranked under linearity. Based on our results, we recommend determining the utility functions preference-accurately using (non)linearity to model the decision as precisely as possible, especially for important decisions. However, no rank reversal for the best alternative was detected in our data set from an absolute utility difference greater than 0.27 between the best and second best alternatives under linearity. In these cases, assuming linear utility functions is useful if decision makers want to save time and effort.

Suggested Citation

  • Mendy Tönsfeuerborn & Rüdiger von Nitzsch & Johannes Ulrich Siebert, 2026. "Linear Transformation of One-Dimensional Utility Functions: Empirical Study on the Impact on the Final Ranking of Alternatives in Personal Decisions," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 23(1), pages 46-64, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:inm:ordeca:v:23:y:2026:i:1:p:46-64
    DOI: 10.1287/deca.2024.0317
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/deca.2024.0317
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/deca.2024.0317?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Juuso Liesiö & Eeva Vilkkumaa, 2021. "Nonadditive Multiattribute Utility Functions for Portfolio Decision Analysis," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 69(6), pages 1886-1908, November.
    2. James S. Dyer & Rakesh K. Sarin, 1979. "Measurable Multiattribute Value Functions," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 27(4), pages 810-822, August.
    3. Eric J. Johnson & David A. Schkade, 1989. "Bias in Utility Assessments: Further Evidence and Explanations," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 35(4), pages 406-424, April.
    4. James S. Dyer & Rakesh K. Sarin, 1982. "Relative Risk Aversion," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 28(8), pages 875-886, August.
    5. John C. Hershey & Howard C. Kunreuther & Paul J. H. Schoemaker, 1982. "Sources of Bias in Assessment Procedures for Utility Functions," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 28(8), pages 936-954, August.
    6. Schoemaker, Paul J. H. & Hershey, John C., 1992. "Utility measurement: Signal, noise, and bias," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 52(3), pages 397-424, August.
    7. Weber, Martin, 1987. "Decision making with incomplete information," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 28(1), pages 44-57, January.
    8. William N. Caballero & Roi Naveiro & David Ríos Insua, 2022. "Modeling Ethical and Operational Preferences in Automated Driving Systems," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 19(1), pages 21-43, March.
    9. Theodor J. Stewart, 1993. "Use of Piecewise Linear Value Functions in Interactive Multicriteria Decision Support: A Monte Carlo Study," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 39(11), pages 1369-1381, November.
    10. Han Bleichrodt & Jose Luis Pinto & Peter P. Wakker, 2001. "Making Descriptive Use of Prospect Theory to Improve the Prescriptive Use of Expected Utility," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 47(11), pages 1498-1514, November.
    11. Chapman, Gretchen B. & Johnson, Eric J., 1999. "Anchoring, Activation, and the Construction of Values, , , , , ," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 79(2), pages 115-153, August.
    12. Peter C. Fishburn, 1965. "Analysis of Decisions with Incomplete Knowledge of Probabilities," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 13(2), pages 217-237, April.
    13. James S. Dyer & James E. Smith, 2021. "Innovations in the Science and Practice of Decision Analysis: The Role of Management Science," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(9), pages 5364-5378, September.
    14. Peter Wakker & Daniel Deneffe, 1996. "Eliciting von Neumann-Morgenstern Utilities When Probabilities Are Distorted or Unknown," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 42(8), pages 1131-1150, August.
    15. Johannes Siebert & Ralph L. Keeney, 2015. "Creating More and Better Alternatives for Decisions Using Objectives," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 63(5), pages 1144-1158, October.
    16. Federico Toffano & Michele Garraffa & Yiqing Lin & Steven Prestwich & Helmut Simonis & Nic Wilson, 2022. "A multi-objective supplier selection framework based on user-preferences," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 308(1), pages 609-640, January.
    17. Ralph L. Keeney, 1982. "Feature Article—Decision Analysis: An Overview," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 30(5), pages 803-838, October.
    18. Durbach, Ian N. & Stewart, Theodor J., 2012. "A comparison of simplified value function approaches for treating uncertainty in multi-criteria decision analysis," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 40(4), pages 456-464.
    19. John C. Butler & James S. Dyer & Jianmin Jia, 2006. "Using Attributes to Predict Objectives in Preference Models," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 3(2), pages 100-116, June.
    20. Gilberto Montibeller & Detlof von Winterfeldt, 2015. "Cognitive and Motivational Biases in Decision and Risk Analysis," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(7), pages 1230-1251, July.
    21. Manel Baucells & Juan A. Carrasco & Robin M. Hogarth, 2008. "Cumulative Dominance and Heuristic Performance in Binary Multiattribute Choice," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 56(5), pages 1289-1304, October.
    22. Ale Smidts, 1997. "The Relationship Between Risk Attitude and Strength of Preference: A Test of Intrinsic Risk Attitude," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 43(3), pages 357-370, March.
    23. John C. Hershey & Paul J. H. Schoemaker, 1985. "Probability Versus Certainty Equivalence Methods in Utility Measurement: Are they Equivalent?," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 31(10), pages 1213-1231, October.
    24. Samuel D. Bond & Kurt A. Carlson & Ralph L. Keeney, 2008. "Generating Objectives: Can Decision Makers Articulate What They Want?," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 54(1), pages 56-70, January.
    25. Sven Peters & Mendy Tönsfeuerborn & Rüdiger von Nitzsch, 2024. "Integrating Uncertainties in a Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis with the Entscheidungsnavi," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 12(11), pages 1-28, June.
    26. Levin, Irwin P. & Schneider, Sandra L. & Gaeth, Gary J., 1998. "All Frames Are Not Created Equal: A Typology and Critical Analysis of Framing Effects," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 76(2), pages 149-188, November.
    27. Ralph L. Keeney & Robin S. Gregory, 2005. "Selecting Attributes to Measure the Achievement of Objectives," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 53(1), pages 1-11, February.
    28. Andre, Francisco J. & Riesgo, Laura, 2007. "A non-interactive elicitation method for non-linear multiattribute utility functions: Theory and application to agricultural economics," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 181(2), pages 793-807, September.
    29. Katsikopoulos, Konstantinos V. & Durbach, Ian N. & Stewart, Theodor J., 2018. "When should we use simple decision models? A synthesis of various research strands," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 17-25.
    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. Scholten, Lisa & Schuwirth, Nele & Reichert, Peter & Lienert, Judit, 2015. "Tackling uncertainty in multi-criteria decision analysis – An application to water supply infrastructure planning," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 242(1), pages 243-260.
    2. Gilberto Montibeller & Detlof von Winterfeldt, 2015. "Cognitive and Motivational Biases in Decision and Risk Analysis," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(7), pages 1230-1251, July.
    3. Christopher Schwand & Rudolf Vetschera & Lea Wakolbinger, 2010. "The influence of probabilities on the response mode bias in utility elicitation," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 69(3), pages 395-416, September.
    4. Joost M. E. Pennings & Ale Smidts, 2003. "The Shape of Utility Functions and Organizational Behavior," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 49(9), pages 1251-1263, September.
    5. James S. Dyer & James E. Smith, 2021. "Innovations in the Science and Practice of Decision Analysis: The Role of Management Science," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(9), pages 5364-5378, September.
    6. James E. Smith & Detlof von Winterfeldt, 2004. "Anniversary Article: Decision Analysis in Management Science," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 50(5), pages 561-574, May.
    7. Timothy McDaniels, 2021. "Four Decades of Transformation in Decision Analytic Practice for Societal Risk Management," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 41(3), pages 491-502, March.
    8. Borgonovo, Emanuele & Jose, Victor Richmond R. & Knowlton, Morgan & Shachter, Ross & Siebert, Johannes Ulrich & Ulu, Canan, 2026. "Fifty years of decision analysis in operational research: A review," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 329(2), pages 355-377.
    9. Sven Peters & Mendy Tönsfeuerborn & Rüdiger von Nitzsch, 2024. "Integrating Uncertainties in a Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis with the Entscheidungsnavi," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 12(11), pages 1-28, June.
    10. José María Abellán Perpiñán & Fernando Ignacio Sánchez Martínez & Jorge Eduardo Martínez Pérez & Ildefonso Méndez, 2012. "Lowering The ‘Floor’ Of The Sf‐6d Scoring Algorithm Using A Lottery Equivalent Method," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 21(11), pages 1271-1285, November.
    11. Kobberling, Veronika & Wakker, Peter P., 2005. "An index of loss aversion," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 122(1), pages 119-131, May.
    12. Birgit Löhndorf & Anna-Lena Sachs & Rudolf Vetschera, 2014. "Stability of probability effects in utility elicitation," 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. 22(4), pages 755-777, December.
    13. Morrison, Gwendolyn C., 1997. "HYE and TTO: What is the difference?," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 16(5), pages 563-578, October.
    14. Carland, Corinne & Goentzel, Jarrod & Montibeller, Gilberto, 2018. "Modeling the values of private sector agents in multi-echelon humanitarian supply chains," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 269(2), pages 532-543.
    15. Yuval Rottenstreich & Alex Markle & Johannes Müller-Trede, 2023. "Risky Sure Things," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 69(8), pages 4707-4720, August.
    16. Oliver, Adam, 2003. "The internal consistency of the standard gamble: tests after adjusting for prospect theory," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 159, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    17. Ulrich Schmidt & Horst Zank, 2012. "A genuine foundation for prospect theory," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 45(2), pages 97-113, October.
    18. Antoni Bosch-Domènech & Joaquim Silvestre, 2013. "Measuring risk aversion with lists: a new bias," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 75(4), pages 465-496, October.
    19. Siebert, Johannes Ulrich & Kunz, Reinhard E. & Rolf, Philipp, 2021. "Effects of decision training on individuals’ decision-making proactivity," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 294(1), pages 264-282.
    20. Stefan Zeisberger & Dennis Vrecko & Thomas Langer, 2012. "Measuring the time stability of Prospect Theory preferences," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 72(3), pages 359-386, March.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:23:y:2026:i:1:p:46-64. 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: Chris Asher (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.html .

    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.