Abstract

In this chapter, we provide a review of multiattribute utility theory. We begin with a brief review of single-attribute preference theory, and we explore preference representations that measure a decision maker’s strength of preference and her preferences for risky alternatives. We emphasize the distinction between these two cases, and then explore the implications for multiattribute preference models. We describe the multiattribute decision problem, and discuss the conditions that allow a multiattribute preference function to be decomposed into additive and multiplicative forms under conditions of certainty and risk. The relationships among these distinct types of multiattribute preference functions are then explored, and issues related to their assessment and applications are surveyed.

Keywords

Multiattribute utility theory additive value functions preference modeling 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [1]
    D. Bell and H. Raiffa. Risky choice revisited. In D.E. Bell, H. Raiffa, and A. Tversky, editors, Decision Making: Descriptive, Normative, and Prescriptive Interactions. Cambridge University Press, New York, 1988.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    R. Bordley and C. Kirkwood. Multiattribute preference analysis with performance targets. Operations Research, in press, 2004.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    C. Camerer. Individual decision making. In J.H. Kagel and A.E. Roth, editors, Handbook of Experimental Economics. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 1995.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    A. Charnes and W.W. Cooper. Management Models and Industrial Applications of Linear Programming. John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1961.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    A. Charnes and W.W. Cooper. Goal programming and multiple objective optimizations. European Journal of Operational Research, 1(1):37–54, 1977.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  6. [6]
    A. Charnes, W.W. Cooper, and R.O. Ferguson. Optimal estimation of executive compensation by linear programming. Management Science, 1(2): 138–151, 1955.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  7. [7]
    G. Debreu. Topological methods in cardinal utility theory. In K.J. Arrow, S. Karlin, and P. Suppes, editors, Mathematical Methods in the Social Sciences 1959. Stanford University Press, Stanford, 1960.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    J.S. Dyer. Remarks on the analytic hierarchy process. Management Science, 36:249–258, 1990.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  9. [9]
    J.S. Dyer and R.A. Sarin. Measurable multiattribute value functions. Operations Research, 22:810–822, 1979.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  10. [10]
    J.S. Dyer and R.K. Sarin. Relative risk aversion. Management Science, 28:875–886, 1982.Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    D. Ellsberg. Classic and current notions of “measurable utility”. Econometrica, 64:528–556, 1954.Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    Peter H. Farquhar. A survey of multiattribute utility theory and applications. In M.K. Starr and M. Zeleny, editors, Multiple Criteria Decision Making, volume 6 of TIMS Studies in the Management Sciences, pages 59–90. North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1977.Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    P.H. Farquhar and L.R. Keller. Preference intensity measurement. Annals of Operations Research, 19:205–217, 1989.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  14. [14]
    P.C. Fishburn. Independence in utility with whole product sets. Operations Research, 13:28–45, 1965.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  15. [15]
    P.C. Fishburn. Utility Theory for Decision Making. John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1970.Google Scholar
  16. [16]
    P.C. Fishburn. Lexicographic orders, utilitites, and decision rules. Management Science, 20:1442–1471, 1974.MATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  17. [17]
    P.C. Fishburn. Nonlinear Preference and Utility Theory. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore MD, 1988.Google Scholar
  18. [18]
    P.C. Fishburn and P. Wakker. The invention of the independence condition for preferences. Management Science, 41(7): 1130–1144, 1995.Google Scholar
  19. [19]
    A. Geoffrion. Objective function approximations in mathematical programming. Mathematical Programming, 13(1):23–37, 1977.CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  20. [20]
    A. Geoffrion, J.S. Dyer, and A. Feinberg. An interactive approach for multi-criterion optimization with an application to the operation of an academic department. Management Science, 19:357–368, 1972.Google Scholar
  21. [21]
    W.M. Gorman. The structure of utility functions. Review of Economic Studies, 35:367–390, 1968.MATHGoogle Scholar
  22. [22]
    J.P. Ignizio. Introduction to Linear Goal Programming, Sage Publications, 1986.Google Scholar
  23. [23]
    J. Ijiri. Management Goals and Accounting for Control. American Elsevier, New York, 1965.Google Scholar
  24. [24]
    J. Jia and J.S. Dyer. A standard measure of risk and risk-value models. Management Science, 42(12):1691–1705, 1996.Google Scholar
  25. [25]
    D. Kahneman and A. Tversky. Prospect theory: An analysis of decisions under risk. Econometrica, 47:276–287, 1979.Google Scholar
  26. [26]
    R.D. Kamenetzky. The relationship between the analytic hierarchy process and the additive value function. Decision Sciences, 13:702–713, 1982.Google Scholar
  27. [27]
    R.L. Keeney and H. Raiffa. Decision with Multiple Objectives: Preference and Value Tradeoffs. Cambridge University Press, New York, 1993.Google Scholar
  28. [28]
    L.R. Keller. An empirical test of relative risk aversion. IEEE Transactions on Man, Systems, and Cybernetics, 15:476–482, 1985.Google Scholar
  29. [29]
    C.W. Kirkwood. Strategic Decision Making. Duxbury Press, Belmont, CA, 1996.Google Scholar
  30. [30]
    H. Krantz, R.D. Luce, P. Suppes, and A. Tversky. Foundations of Measurement. Volume I: Additive and Polynomial Representations. Academic Press, New York, 1971.Google Scholar
  31. [31]
    D.M. Kreps. A Course in Microeconomic Theory. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 1990.Google Scholar
  32. [32]
    R. Krzysztofowicz. Strength of preference and risk attitude in utility measurement. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 31:88–113, 1983.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. [33]
    R.D. Luce and J.W. Tukey. Simultaneous conjoint measurement: A new type of fundamental measurement. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 1:1–27, 1964.Google Scholar
  34. [34]
    J.W. Pratt. Risk aversion in the small and in the large. Econometrica, 32:122–136, 1964.MATHGoogle Scholar
  35. [35]
    T.L. Saaty. The Analytic Hierarchy Process. McGraw-Hill, NewYork, 1980.Google Scholar
  36. [36]
    A.A. Salo and R.P. Hämäläinen. On the measurement of preferences in the analytic hierarchy process. Journal of Multi-Criterion Decision Analysis, 6:309–319, 1997.Google Scholar
  37. [37]
    R.K. Sarin. Strength of preference and risky choice. Operations Research, 30:982–997, 1982.MATHGoogle Scholar
  38. [38]
    L.J. Savage. The Foundations of Statistics. John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1954.Google Scholar
  39. [39]
    D. Scott and P. Suppes. Foundational aspects of theories of measurement. Journal of Symbolic Logic, 23:113–128, 1958.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  40. [40]
    T. Trzaskalik and J. Michnik, editors. Multiple Objective and Goal Programming: Recent Developments. Physica Verlag, Heidelberg, 2002.Google Scholar
  41. [41]
    J. von Neumann and O. Morgenstern. Theory of Games and Economic Behavior. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 1947.Google Scholar
  42. [42]
    D. von Winterfeldt and W. Edwards. Decision Analysis and Behavioral Research. Cambridge University Press, New York, 1986.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media, Inc. 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • James S. Dyer
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Management Science and Information SystemsThe Graduate School of Business University of Texas at AustinAustinUSA

Personalised recommendations