Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Research Directions in Multiattribute Utility Analysis

  • Conference paper
Essays and Surveys on Multiple Criteria Decision Making

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems ((LNE,volume 209))

Abstract

There have been many contributions in multiattribute utility research over the past two decades. This paper examines the progress of research on multiattribute utility theory and methods. The main purpose of this overview is to identify possible directions for further research.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Allais, M. and O. Hagen (eds.) (1979). Expected Utility Hypotheses and the Allais Paradox, Reidel, Dordrecht, Holland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arrow, K.J. (1971). Essays in the Theory of Risk-Bearing, Markham, Chicago, IL.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aschenbrenner, K.M. (1977). “Influence of Attribute Formulation on the Evaluation of Apartments by Multi-Attribute Utility Procedures,” in H. Jungermann and G. de Leeuw (eds.), Decision Making and Change in Human Affairs, Reidel, Dordrecht, Holland, pp. 81–97.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Barrager, S.M. (1980). “Assessment of Simple Joint Time/Risk Preference Functions,” Management Science, Vol. 26, pp. 620–632.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bell, D.E. (1974). “Evaluating Time Streams of Income,” Omega, Vol. 2, pp. 691–699.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bell, D.E. (1977). “A Utility Function for Time Streams having Inter-Period Dependencies,” Operations Research, Vol. 25, pp. 448–458.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bell, D.E. (1979a). “Consistent Assessment Procedures using Conditional Utility Functions,” Operations Research, Vol. 27, pp. 1054–1066.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bell, D.E. (1979b). Multiattribute Utility Functions: Decompositions using Interpolation,“ Management Science, Vol. 25, pp. 744–753.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bell, D.E. (1982a). “Regret in Decision Making under Uncertainty,” Operations Research, Vol. 30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bell, D.E. (1982b). “Risk Premiums for Decision Regret,” Graduate School of Business Administration, Harvard University, Boston, Massachusetts.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bell, D.E., R.L. Keeney, and H. Raiffa (eds.) (1977). Conflicting Objectives in Decisions, Wiley, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bell, D.E. and H. Raiffa (1982). “Marginal Value and Intrinsic Risk Aversion,” in H. Kunreuther (ed.), Risk: A Seminar Series, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Laxenburg, Austria.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bettman, J.R. (1979). An Information Processing Theory of Consumer Choice, Addison-Wesley, Reading, Massachusetts.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, R.V. and J.W. Ulvila (1977). “Selecting Analytical Approaches for Decision Situations,” Technical Report 77–7–25 (Revised Edition), Vols. I, II, I II, Decisions and Designs, Inc., McLean, Virginia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Camacho, A. (1979). “On Cardinal Utility,” Theory and Decision, Vol. 10, pp. 131–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Camacho, A. (1980). “Approaches to Cardinal Utility,” Theory and Decision, Vol. 13, pp. 359–379.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Camacho, A. (1983). “Cardinal Utility and Decision Making under Uncertainty,” in B. Stigum and F. Wenstop (eds.), Foundations of Utility and Risk Theory, Reidel, Dordrecht, Holland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Camerer, C. (1982). “Fitting Linear Models to Interactive Data when Variables are Intercorrelated: Analytical Results and Implications,” Graduate School of Management, Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chew, S.H. and K.R. MacCrimmon (1979). “Alpha-Nu Choice Theory: A Generalization of Expected Utility Theory,” Working Paper 669, Faculty of Commerce and Business Administration, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cochrane, J.L. and M. Zeleny (eds.) (1973). Multiple Criteria Decision Making, University of South Carolina Press, Columbia, South Carolina.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohon, J.L. (1978). Multiobjective Programming and Planning, Academic Press, NY.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coombs, C.H. and P.E. Lehner (1981). “The. Conjoint Analysis of the Bilinear Model, Illustrated with a Theory of Risk,” in I. Borg (ed.), Multidimensional Data Representations: When and Why?, Mathesis Press, Ann Arbor, Michigan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cyert, R.M. and M.H. DeGroot (1975). “Adaptive Utility,” in R.H. Day and T. Groves (eds.), Adaptive Economic Models, Academic Press, New York, pp. 223–246.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duncan, G.T. (1977). “A Matrix Measure of Multivariate Local Risk Aversion,” Econometrica, Vol. 45, pp. 895–902.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dyer, J.S. and R.K. Sarin (1979a). “Measurable Multiattribute Value Functions,” Operations Research, Vol. 27, pp. 810–822.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dyer, J.S. and R.K. Sarin (1979b). “Group Preference Aggregation Rules Based on Strength of Preference,” Management Science, Vol. 25, pp. 822–832.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dyer, J.S. and R.K. Sarin (1982). “Relative Risk Aversion,” Management Science, Vol. 28, pp. 875–886.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edwards, W. (1977). “How to Use Multiattribute Utility Measurement for Social Decision Making,” IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Vol. SMC-7, pp. 326–340.

    Google Scholar 

  • Einhorn, H.J. and R.M. Hogarth (1981). “Behavioral Decision Theory: Process of Judgment and Choice,” Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 32, pp. 53–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eliashberg, J. and J.R. Hauser (1981). “Measurement Error Theories for von Neumann-Morgenstern Utility Functions,” Discussion Paper 448, Center for Mathematical Studies in Economics and Management Science, Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois.

    Google Scholar 

  • Engelbrecht, R. (1977). “A Note on Multivariate Risk and Separable Utility Functions,” Management Science, Vol. 23, pp. 1143–1144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Epstein, L.G. (1980). “Multivariate Risk Independence and Functional Forms for Preferences and Technologies,” Econometrica, Vol. 48, pp. 973–985.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Farquhar, P.H. (1974). “Fractional Hypercube Decompositions of Multiattribute Utility Functions,” Technical Report 222, Department of Operations Research, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Farquhar, P.H. (1975). “A Fractional Hypercube Decomposition Theorem for Multiattribute Utility Functions,” Operations Research, Vol. 23, pp. 941–967.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Farquhar, P.H. (1976). “Pyramid and Semicube Decompositions of Multiattribute Utility Functions,” Operations Research, Vol. 24, pp. 256–271.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Farquhar, P.H. (1977). “A Survey of Multiattribute Utility Theory and Applications,” in M.K. Starr and M. Zeleny (eds.), Multiple Criteria Decision Making, TIMS Studies in the Management Sciences, North-Holland, Amsterdam, Vol. 6, pp. 59–89.

    Google Scholar 

  • Farquhar, P.H. (1978). Interdependent Criteria in Utility Analysis,“ in S. Zionts (ed.), Multiple Criteria Problem Solving, Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Vol. 155, pp. 131–180.

    Google Scholar 

  • Farquhar, P.H. (1980). “Advances in Multiattribute Utility Theory,” Theory and Decision, Vol. 12, pp. 381–394.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Farquhar, P.H. (1981a). “Multivalent Preference Structures,” Mathematical Social Sciences, Vol. 1, pp. 397–408.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Farquhar, P.H. (1981b). “Research Directions in Decision Analysis,” presented at the ORSA/TIMS Meeting in Washington, D.C.

    Google Scholar 

  • Farquhar, P.H. (1982). “Utility Assessment Methods,” Working Paper 81–5, Graduate School of Administration, University of California, Davis, California.

    Google Scholar 

  • Farquhar, P.H. and P.C. Fishburn (1981). “Equivalences and Continuity in Multi- valent Preference Structures,” Operations Research, Vol. 29, pp. 282–293.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Farquhar, P.H. and P.C. Fishburn (1983). “Indifference Spanning Analysis,” in B. Stigum and F. Wenstop (eds.), Foundations of Utility and Risk Theory, Reidel, Dordrecht, Holland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischer, G.W. (1977). “Convergent Validation of Decomposed Multi-Attribute Utility Assessment Procedures for Risky and Riskless Decisions,” Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, Vol. 18, pp. 295–315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fischer, G.W. (1979). “Utility Models for Multiple Objective Decisions: Do They Accurately Represent Human Preferences,” Decision Sciences, Vol. 10, pp. 451–479.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fischer, G.W. (1980). “A Constructive Approach to Utility Assessment-Assessing Preferences that are Ill-Defined or Uncertain,” Department of Social Science, Carnegie-Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischer, G.W. and M.S. Kamlet (1981). “The Reference Level Risk-Value Model: Reference Effects and Multivariate Risk Preferences,” Department of Social Sciences, Carnegie-Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischhoff, B. (1980a). “Clinical Decision Analysis,” Operations Research, Vol. 28, pp. 28–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fischhoff, B. (1980b). “Debiasing,” in D. Kahneman, P. Slovic, and A. Tversky (eds.), Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases, Cambridge Univer-sity Press, New York, pp. 422–444.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischhoff, B., P. Slovic, and S. Lichtenstein (1980). “Knowing What You Want: Mea- suring Labile Values,” in T.S. Wallsten (ed.), Cognitive Processes in Choice and Decision Behavior, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, New Jersey.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fishburn, P.C. (1965a). “Independence in Utility Theory with Whole Product Sets,” Operations Research, Vol. 13, pp. 28–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fishburn, P.C. (1965b). “Markovian Dependence in Utility Theory with Whole Product Sets,” Operations Research, Vol. 13, pp. 238–257.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fishburn, P.C. (1966a). “Additivity in Utility Theory with Denumerable Product Sets,” Econometrica, Vol. 34, pp. 500–503.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fishburn, P.C. (1966b). “A Note on Recent Developments in Additive Utility Theories for Multiple-Factor Situations,” Operations Research, Vol. 14, pp. 1143–1148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fishburn, P.C. (1967a). “Methods for Estimating Additive Utilities,” Management Science, Vol. 13, pp. 435–453.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fishburn, P.C. (1967b). “Additive Utilities with Incomplete Product Sets: Applications to Priorities and Assignments,” Operations Research, Vol. 15, pp. 537–542.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fishburn, P.C. (1967c). “Interdependence and Additivity in Multivariate Unidimensional Expected Utility Theory,” International Economic Review, Vol. 8, pp. 335342.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fishburn, P.C. (1968). “Utility Theory,” Management Science, Vol. 14, pp. 335–378.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fishburn, P.C. (1970). Utility Theory for Decision Making, Wiley, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fishburn, P.C. (1971). “Additive Representations of Real-Valued Functions on Subsets of Product Sets,” Journal of Mathematical Psychology, Vol. 8, pp. 382–388.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fishburn, P.C. (1972). “Interdependent Preferences on Finite Sets,” Journal of Mathematical Psychology, Vol. 9, pp. 225–236.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fishburn, P.C. (1973). “Bernoullian Utilities for Multiple-Factor Situations,” in J.L. Cochrane and M. Zeleny (eds.), Multiple Criteria Decision Making, University of South Carolina Press, Columbia, South Carolina, pp. 47–61.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fishburn, P.C. (1974). “von Neumann-Morgenstern Utility Functions on Two Attributes,” Operations Research, Vol. 22, pp. 35–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fishburn, P.C. (1976a). “Utility Independence on Subsets of Product Sets,” Operations Research, Vol. 24, pp. 245–255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fishburn, P.C. (1976b). “Cardinal Utility: An Interpretive Essay,” Rivista Internazionale di Scienze Economiche e Commerciali, Vol. 23, pp. 1102–1114.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fishburn, P.C. (1977a). “Multiattribute Utilities in Expected Utility Theory,” in D.E. Bell, R.L. Keeney, and H. Raiffa (eds.), Conflicting Objectives in Decisions, Wiley, New York, pp. 172–194.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fishburn, P.C. (1977b). “Approximations of Two-Attribute Utility Functions,” Mathematics of Operations Research, Vol. 2, pp. 30–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fishburn, P.C. (1977c). “Mean-Risk Analysis with Risk Associated with Below Target Returns,” American Economic Review, Vol. 67, pp. 116–126.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fishburn, P.C. (1978). “A Survey of Multiattribute/Multicriterion Evaluation Theories,” in S. Zionts (ed.), Multiple Criteria Problem Solving, Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Vol. 155, pp. 181224.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fishburn, P.C. (1979). “Approximations of Multiattribute Utility Functions,” Journal of Approximation Theory, Vol. 27, pp. 179–196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fishburn, P.C. (1981a). “Subjective Expected Utility: A Review of Normative Theories,” Theory and Decision, Vol. 13, pp. 139–199.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fishburn, P.C. (1981b). “An Axiomatic Characterization of Skew-Symmetric Bilinear

    Google Scholar 

  • Functionals with Applications to Utility Theory,“ Economics Letters, Vol. 8, pp. 311–313.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fishburn, P.C. (1981c). “Nontransitive Measurable Utility,” Economics Discussion Paper 209, Bell Telephone Laboratories, Murray Hill, New Jersey.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fishburn, P.C. (1981d). “Transitive Measurable Utility,” Economics Discussion Paper 224, Bell Telephone Laboratories, Murray Hill, New Jersey.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fishburn, P.C. (1982a). “Foundations of Risk Measurement. I: Risk as Probable Loss,” Economics Discussion Paper 241, Bell Telephone Laboratories, Murray Hill, New Jersey.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fishburn, P.C. (1982b). “Multiattribute Nonlinear Utility Theory,” Economics Dis- cussion Paper 249, Bell Telephone Laboratories, Murray Hill, New Jersey.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fishburn, P.C. (1982c). “Foundations of Risk Measurement. II: Effects of Gains on Risk,” Economics Discussion Paper 251, Bell Telephone Laboratories, Murray Hill, New Jersey.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fishburn, P.C. (1983). The Foundations of Expected Utility, Reidel, Dordrecht, Holland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fishburn, P.C. and P.H. Farquhar (1982). “Finite-Degree Utility Independence,” Mathematics of Operations Research, Vol. 7, pp. 348–353.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fishburn, P.C. and R.L. Keeney (1974). “Seven Independence Concepts and Continuous Multiattribute Utility Functions,” Journal of Mathematical Psychology, Vol. 11, pp. 294–327.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fishburn, P.C. and R.L. Keeney (1975). “Generalized Utility Independence and Some Implications,” Operations Research, Vol. 23, pp. 928–940.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fishburn, P.C. and A. Rubinstein (1981). “Time Preference,” Economics Discussion Paper 226, Bell Telephone Laboratories, Murray Hill, New Jersey.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fryback, D.G., D.H. Gustafson, and J.H. Rose (1979). “(In-)Sensitivity of Multiattribute Evaluation Models to Model Formulation,” Center for Health Systems Research and Analysis, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grochow, J.M. (1972). “A Utility Theoretic Approach to Evaluation of a Time-Sharing System,” in W. Freiberger (ed.), Statistical Computer Performance Evaluation, Academic Press, New York, pp. 25–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hammond, J.S. (1974). “Simplifying the Choice between Uncertain Prospects,” Management Science, Vol. 20, pp. 1047–1072.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harvey, C.M. (1981). “Conditions on Risk Attitude for a Single Attribute,” Management Science, Vol. 27, pp. 190–203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hauser, J.R. and S.M. Shugan (1980). “Intensity Measures of Consumer Preference,” Operations Research, Vol. 28, pp. 278–320.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hershey, J.C., H.C. Kunreuther, and P.J.H. Schoemaker (1982). “Sources of Bias in Assessment Procedures for Utility Functions,” Management Science, Vol. 28, pp. 936–954.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hogarth, R.M. (1980). Judgement and Choice: The Psychology of Decision, Wiley, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huber, G.P. (1974). “Multiattribute Utility Models: A Review of Field and Field-Like Studies,” Management Science, Vol. 20, pp. 1393–1402.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Humphreys, P.C. and A. Wisudha (1979). “MAUD: An Interactive Computer Program for the Structuring, Decomposition, and Recomposition of Preferences between Multi-attributed Alternatives,” Technical Report 79–2, Decision Analysis Unit, Brunel University, Uxbridge, England.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, E.M. and G.P. Huber (1977). “The Technology of Utility Assessment,” IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Vol. SMC-7, pp. 311–325.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jungermann, H. (1980). “Structural Modeling of Decision Problems,” Institute for Psychology, Technical University of Berlin, Berlin, West Germany.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D., P. Slovic, and A. Tversky (eds.) (1982). Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases, Cambridge University Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D. and A. Tversky (1979). “Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk,” Econometrica, Vol. 47, pp. 263–291.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karni, E. (1979). “On Multivariate Risk Aversion,” Econometrica, Vol. 47, pp. 13911401.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keelin, T.W. (1981). “A Parametric Representation of Additive Value Functions,” Management Science, Vol. 27, pp. 1200–1208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keen, P.G.W. and M.S. Scott Morton (1978). Decision Support Systems: An Organizational Perspective, Addison-Wesley, Reading, Massachusetts.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keeney, R.L. (1968). “Quasi-Separable Utility Functions,” Naval Research Logistics Quarterly, Vol. 15, pp. 551–565.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keeney, R.L. (1969). “Multidimensional Utility Functions: Theory, Assessment, and Application,” Technical Report 43, Operations Research Center, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keeney, R.L. (1971). “Utility Independence and Preferences for Multiattributed Con-sequences,” Operations Research, Vol. 19, pp. 875–893.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keeney, R.L. (1972a). “Utility Functions for Multiattributed Consequences,” Management Science, Vol. 18, pp. 276–287.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keeney, R.L. (1972b). “An Illustrated Procedure for Assessing Multiattributed Utility Functions,” Sloan Management Review, Vol. 14, pp. 37–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keeney, R.L. (1973a). “Concepts of Independence in Multiattribute Utility Theory,” in J.L. Cochrane and M. Zeleny (eds.), Multiple Criteria Decision Making, University of South Carolina Press, Columbia, South Carolina, pp. 62–71.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keeney, R.L. (1973b). “Risk Independence and Multiattribute Utility Functions,” Econometrica, Vol. 41, pp. 27–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keeney, R.L. (1974). “Multiplicative Utility Functions,” Operations Research, Vol. 22, pp. 22–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keeney R.L. (1976). “A Group Preference Axiomatization with Cardinal Utility,” Management Science, Vol. 23, pp. 140–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keeney, R.L. (1977). “The Art of Assessing Multiattribute Utility Functions,” Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, Vol. 19, pp. 267–310.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keeney, R.L. (1980a). Siting Energy Facilities, Academic Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keeney, R.L. (1980b). “Utility Functions for Equity and Public Risk,” Management Science, Vol. 24, pp. 345–353.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keeney, R.L. (1981a). “Analysis of Preference Dependencies among Objectives,” Operations Research, Vol. 29, pp. 1105–1120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keeney, R.L. (1981b). “Measurement Scales for Quantifying Attributes,” Behavioral Science, Vol. 26, pp. 29–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keeney, R.L. (1982). “Decision Analysis: An Overview,” Operations Research, Vol. 30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keeney, R.L. and C.W. Kirkwood (1975). “Group Decision Making using Cardinal Social Welfare Functions,” Management Science, Vol. 22, pp. 430–437.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keeney, R.L. and H. Raiffa (1976). Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Tradeoffs, Wiley, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keeney, R.L. and A. Sicherman (1976). “Assessing and Analyzing Preferences Concerning Multiple Objectives: An Interactive Approach,” Behavioral Science, Vol. 21, pp. 173–182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kihlstrom, R.E. and L.J. Mirman (1974). “Risk Aversion wth Many Commodities,” Journal of Economic Theory, Vol. 8, pp. 361–388.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kihlstrom, R.E. and L.J. Mirman (1981). “Constant, Increasing, and Decreasing Risk Aversion with Many Commodities,” Review of Economic Studies, Vol. 48, pp. 271280.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirkwood, C.W. (1976). “Parametrically Dependent Preferences for Multiattributed Consequences,” Operations Research, Vol. 24, pp. 92–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kirkwood, C.W. and R. Sarin (1980). “Preference Conditions for Multiattribute Value Functions,” Operations Research, Vol. 28, pp. 225–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klein, G., H. Moskowitz, S. Mahesh, and A. Ravindran (1982). “Simplified Assessment of Single-and Multi-Attributed Utility Functions via Mathematical Programming,” Report 82–7, Department of Management Information Systems, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koopmans, T.C. (1960). “Stationary Ordinal Utility and Impatience,” Econometrica, Vol. 28, pp. 287–309.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kreps, D. and E. Porteus (1978). “Temporal Resolution of Uncertainty and Dynamic Choice Theory,” Econometrica, Vol. 46, pp. 185–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krzysztofowicz, R. (1982). “Strength of Preference and Risk Attitude in Utility Measurement,” Organizational Behavior and Human Performance.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lancaster, K. (1963). “An Axiomatic Theory of Consumer Time Preference,” International Economic Review, Vol. 4, pp. 221–231.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leal, A. and J. Pearl (1977). “An Interactive Program for Conversational Elicitation of Decision Structures,” IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Vol. SMC-7, pp. 368–376.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luce, R.D. (1980). “Several Possible Measures of Risk,” Theory and Decision, Vol. 12, pp. 217–228;

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luce, R.D. Correction, Theory and Decision, Vol. 13 (1981), p. 381.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacCrimmon, K.R. (1973). “An Overview of Multiple Objective Decision Making,” in J.L. Cochrane and M. Zeleny (eds.), Multiple Criteria Decision Making, University of South Carolina Press, Columbia, South Carolina, pp. 18–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacCrimmon, K.R. and J.K. Siu (1974). “Making Trade-Offs,” Decision Sciences, Vol. 5, pp. 680–704.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacCrimmon, K.R. and D.A. Wehrung (1977). “Trade-Off Analysis: The Indifference and Preferred Proportion Approaches,” in D.E. Bell, R.L. Keeney, and H. Raiffa (eds.), Conflicting Objectives in Decisions, Wiley, New York, pp. 123–147.

    Google Scholar 

  • Machina, M. (1982). “Expected Utility Analysis without the Independence Axiom,” Econometrica, Vol. 50, pp. 277–323.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • March, J.G. (1978). “Bounded Rationality, Ambiguity, and the Engineering of Choice,” Belt Journal of Economics, Vol. 9, pp. 587–608.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Merkhofer, M.W. and E.B. Leaf (1981). “A Computer-Aided Decision Structuring Process: A Final Report,” Technical Report 1513, SRI International, Menlo Park, California.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, R.F. (1970). “On the Relationship among the Utility of Assets, the Utility of Consumption, and Investment Strategy in an Uncertain, but Time-Invariant, World,” in J. Lawrence (ed.), OR-69-Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Operational Research Venice 1969, Tavistock Publications, New York, pp. 627–648.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, R.F. (1976). “Preferences over Time,” Chapter 9 in R.L. Keeney and H. Raiffa, Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Tradeoffs, Wiley, New York, pp. 473–514.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, R.F. (1977). “State-Dependent Time Preference,” in D.E. Bell, R.L. Keeney, and H. Raiffa (eds.), Conflicting Objectives in Decisions, Wiley, New York, pp. 232–243.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, A.C., M.W. Merkhofer, R.A. Howard, J.E. Matheson, and T.R. Rice (1976). “Development of Automated Aids for Decision Analysis,” SRI Report 3309, SRI International, Menlo Park, California.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mintzberg, H., D. Raisinghani, and A. Theoret (1976). “The Structure of ‘Unstructured’ Decision Processes,” Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 21, pp. 246275.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nachman, D.C. (1975). “Risk Aversion, Impatience, and Optimal Timing Decisions,” Journal of Economic Theory, Vol. 11, pp. 196–246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nahas, K.H. (1977). “Preference Modeling of Utility Surfaces,” unpublished doctoral dissertation, Department of Engineering-Economic Systems, Stanford University, Stanford, California.

    Google Scholar 

  • Newell, A. and H.A. Simon (1972). Human Problem Solving, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.

    Google Scholar 

  • Novick, M.R., D.F. Dekeyrel, and D.T. Chuang (1981). “Local and Regional Coherence Utility Assessment Procedures,” Bayesian Statistics, Proceedings of the First International Meeting, University Press, Valencia, Spain, pp. 557–568.

    Google Scholar 

  • Novick, M.R. and D.V. Lindley (1979). “Fixed-State Assessment of Utility Functions,” Journal of the American Statistical Association, Vol. 74, pp. 306–311.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Operations Research (1980). “Special Issue on Decision Analysis,” Vol. 28, No. 1.

    Google Scholar 

  • Payne, J.W. (1976). “Task Complexity and Contingent Processing in Decision Making,” Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, Vol. 16, pp. 366–387.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pearl, J., A. Leal, and J. Saleh (1980). “GODDESS: A Goal-Directed Decision Structuring System,” UCLA-ENG-CSL-8034, School of Engineering and Applied Sciences, University of California, Los Angeles, California.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pollak, R.A. (1967). “Additive von Neumann-Morgenstern Utility Functions,” Econometrica, Vol. 35, pp. 485–494.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pratt, J.W. (1964). “Risk Aversion in the Small and in the Large,” Econometrica, Vol. 32, pp. 122–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raiffa, H. (1968). Decision Analysis: Introductory Lectures on Choices Under Uncertainty, Addison-Wesley, Reading, Massachusetts.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raiffa, H. (1969). “Preferences for Multiattributed Alternatives,” RM-5868-DOT/RC, The Rand Corporation, Santa Monica, California.

    Google Scholar 

  • Richard, S.F. (1975). “Multivariate Risk Aversion, Utility Independence, and Separable Utility Functions,” Management Science, Vol. 22, pp. 12–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rothblum, U.G. (1975). “Multivariate Constant Risk Posture,” Journal of Economic Theory, Vol. 10, pp. 309–332.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sarin, R.K. (1977). “Interactive Evaluation and Bound Procedure for Selecting Multi-Attributed Alternatives,” in M.K. Starr and M. Zeleny (eds.), Multiple Criteria Decision Making, TIMS Studies in the Management Sciences, North Holland, Amsterdam, Vol. 6, pp. 211–224.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sarin, R.K. (1982). “Strength of Preference and Risky Choice,” Operations Research, Vol. 30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schlaifer, R.O. (1971). Computer Programs for Elementar Decision Analysis, Division of Research, Graduate School of Business Administration, Harvard University, Boston, Massachusetts.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schoemaker, P.J.H. (1980). Experiments on Decisions Under Risk: The Expected Utility Hypothesis, Martinus Nijhoff, Boston, Massachusetts.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schoemaker, P.J.H. (1982). “The Expected Utility Model: Its Variants, Purposes, Evidence, and Limitations,” Journal of Economic Literature, Vol. 20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott, D. and P. Suppes (1958). “Foundational Aspects of Theories of Measurement,” Journal of Symbolic Logic, Vol. 23, pp. 113–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seo, F., M. Sakawa, H. Takanashi, K. Nakagami, and H. Horiyama (1978). “An Interactive Computer Program for Multiattribute Utility Analysis,” GE18–1890–0, Tokyo Scientific Center, IBM, Tokyo, Japan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slovic, P., B. Fischhoff, and S. Lichtenstein (1982). “Response Mode, Framing, and Information-Processing Effects in Risk Assessment,” in R. Hogarth (ed.), New Directions for Methodology of Social and Behavioral Science: Question Framing and Response Consistency, Vol. 11, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, pp. 21–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spence, M. and R. Zeckhauser (1972). “The Effect of the Timing of Consumption Decisions and the Resolution of Lotteries on the Choice of Lotteries,” Econometrica, Vol. 40, pp. 401–403.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Suppes, P. and M. Winet (1955). “An Axiomatization of Utility Based on the Notion of Utility Differences,” Management Science, Vol. 1, pp. 259–270.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tamura, H. and Y. Nakamura (1978). “Constructing a Two-Attribute Utility Function for Pollution and Consumption Based on a New Concept of Convex Dependence,” in H. Myoken (ed.), Information, Decision, and Control in Dynamic Socio-Economics, Bunshindo, Tokyo, Japan, pp. 381–412.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tamura, H. and Y. Nakamura (1982). “Decompositions of Multiattribute Utility Functions Based on Convex Dependence,” Working Paper 82–1, Graduate School of Administration, University of California, Davis, California.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ting, H.M. (1971). “Aggregation of Attributes for Multiattributed Utility Assessment,” Technical Report 66, Operations Research Center, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tversky, A. and D. Kahneman (1981). “The Framing of Decisions and the Psychology of Choice,” Science, Vol. 211, pp. 453–458.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ulvila, J.W. (1975). “A Pilot Survey of Computer Programs for Decision Analysis,” Technical Report 75–2, Decisions and Designs, Inc., McLean, Virginia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ulvila, J.W. and R.V. Brown (1981). “Decision Analysis Comes of Age,” Decision Science Consortium, Falls Church, Virginia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Gundy, A.B. (1981). Techniques of Structured Problem Solving, Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • von Neumann, J. and O. Morgenstern (1947). Theory of Games and Economic Behavior, 2nd ed., Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey.

    Google Scholar 

  • von Winterfeldt, D. (1980). “Structuring Decision Problems for Decision Analysis,” Acta Psychologica, Vol. 45, pp. 71–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • von Winterfeldt, D., F.H. Barron, and G.W. Fischer (1980). “Theoretical and Empirical Relationships between Risky and Riskless Utility Functions,” Social Science Research Institute, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California.

    Google Scholar 

  • von Winterfeldt, D. and G.W. Fischer (1975). “Multi-Attribute Utility Theory: Models and Assessment Procedures,” in D. Wendt and C. Vlek (eds.), Utility, Probability, and Human Decision Making, Reidel, Dordrecht, Holland, pp. 47–85.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Weiss, J.J. (1980). “QVAL and GENTREE: Two Approaches to Problem Structuring in Decision Aids,” Technical Report 80–3–97, Decisions and Designs, Inc., McLean, Virginia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weiss, J.J. and C.W. Kelly (1980). “RSCREEN and OPGEN: Two Problem Structuring Decision Aids Which Employ Decision Templates,” Technical Report 80–4–97, Decisions and Designs, Inc., McLean, Virginia.

    Google Scholar 

  • White, C.C. and A.P. Sage (1980). “A Multiple Objective Optimization-Based Approach to Choicemaking,” IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Vol. SMC10, pp. 315–326.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winkler, R.L. (1982). “Research Directions in Decision Making under Uncertainty,” Decision Sciences, Vol. 13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zeleny, M. (1982). Multiple Criteria Decision Making, McGraw-Hill, New York.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of California, Davis, USA

    Peter H. Farquhar

Authors
  1. Peter H. Farquhar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Faculté de Sciences Economiques Appliquées, Faculté Universitaire Catholique de Mons, Chaussée de Binche, 151, B-7000, Mons, Belgium

    Pierre Hansen

  2. Institut d’Economie Scientifique et de Gestion, Lille, France

    Pierre Hansen

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1983 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Farquhar, P.H. (1983). Research Directions in Multiattribute Utility Analysis. In: Hansen, P. (eds) Essays and Surveys on Multiple Criteria Decision Making. Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems, vol 209. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-46473-7_7

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-46473-7_7

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-11991-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-642-46473-7

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation