Theory and Decision

, Volume 68, Issue 1–2, pp 69–99 | Cite as

Invariant multiattribute utility functions

  • Ali E. Abbas


We present a method to characterize the preferences of a decision maker in decisions with multiple attributes. The approach modifies the outcomes of a multivariate lottery with a multivariate transformation and observes the change in the decision maker’s certain equivalent. If the certain equivalent follows this multivariate transformation, we refer to this situation as multiattribute transformation invariance, and we derive the functional form of the utility function. We then show that any additive or multiplicative utility function that is formed of continuous and strictly monotonic utility functions of the individual attributes must satisfy transformation invariance with a multivariate transformation. This result provides a new interpretation for multiattribute utility functions with mutual utility independence as well as a necessary and sufficient condition that must be satisfied when assuming these widely used functional forms. We work through several examples to illustrate the approach.


Invariance Zero-switch Risk aversion Utility independence Multiattribute utility 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Abbas A.E. (2007) Invariant utility functions and certain equivalent transformations. Decision Analysis 4(1): 17–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Abbas, A. E., Aczél, J., & Chudziak, J. (2008). Invariance of multiattribute utility functions under shift transformations. Results in Mathematics. doi: 10.1007/s00025-007-0266-0.
  3. Aczél J. (1966) Lectures on functional equations and their applications. Academic Press, NYGoogle Scholar
  4. Arrow, K. J. (1965). The theory of risk aversion. Lecture 2 in aspects of the theory of risk-bearing. Helsinki: Yrjo Jahnssonin Saatio.Google Scholar
  5. Baucells M., Sarin R.K. (2007) Evaluating time streams of income: discounting what?. Theory and Decision 63: 95–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dyer J.S., Sarin R. (1982) Relative risk aversion. Management Science 28: 875–886CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Howard, R.A. (1967). Value of information lotteries. IEEE Transactions on Systems Science and Cybernetics, SCC-3(1), 24–60.Google Scholar
  8. Howard R.A. (1971) Proximal decision analysis. Management Science 17: 567–601CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Keeney R.L., Raiffa H. (1976) Decisions with multiple objectives: preferences and value tradeoffs. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New YorkGoogle Scholar
  10. Matheson J.E., Abbas A.E. (2005) Utility transversality: a value-based approach. Journal of Multicriteria Decision Analysis 13: 229–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Pfanzagl, J. (1959). A general theory of measurement applications to utility, Naval Research Logistic Quarterly, 6, 283–294.Google Scholar
  12. Pratt J. (1964) Risk aversion in the small and in the large. Econometrica 32: 122–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Raiffa H. (1968) Decision analysis. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MAGoogle Scholar
  14. von Neumann J., Morgenstern O. (1947) Theory of games and economic behavior. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignUrbanaUSA

Personalised recommendations