| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
iMTA, Erasmus University, P.O. Box 1738, Rotterdam, 3000 DR, The Netherlands
This paper proposes a quantitative modification of standard utility elicitation procedures, such as the probability and certainty equivalence methods, to correct for commonly observed violations of expected utility. Traditionally, decision analysis assumes expected utility not only for the prescriptive purpose of calculating optimal decisions but also for the descriptive purpose of eliciting utilities. However, descriptive violations of expected utility bias utility elicitations. That such biases are effective became clear when systematic discrepancies were found between different utility elicitation methods that, under expected utility, should have yielded identical utilities. As it is not clear how to correct for these biases without further knowledge of their size or nature, most utility elicitations still calculate utilities by means of the expected utility formula. This paper speculates on the biases and their sizes by using the quantitative assessments of probability transformation and loss aversion suggested by prospect theory. It presents quantitative corrections for the probability and certainty equivalence methods. If interactive sessions to correct for biases are not possible, then the authors propose to use the corrected utilities rather than the uncorrected ones in prescriptions of optimal decisions. In an experiment, the discrepancies between the probability and certainty equivalence methods are removed by the authors' proposal.
Department of Economics, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Ramon Trias Fargas, 25-27, 08005, Barcelona, Spain
Medical Decision Making Unit, LUMC, P.O. Box 9600, Leiden, 2300 RC, The Netherlands
bleichrodt{at}econ.bmg.eur.nl
pinto_jose{at}econ.upf.es
wakker{at}fee.uva.nl
History: Received: July 18, 1999;
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  N. Vareman Norms and Descriptions Decision Analysis, June 1, 2008; 5(2): 88 - 99. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. K. Jacobi and B. F. Hobbs Quantifying and Mitigating the Splitting Bias and Other Value Tree-Induced Weighting Biases Decision Analysis, December 1, 2007; 4(4): 194 - 210. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 M. Abdellaoui, H. Bleichrodt, and C. Paraschiv Loss Aversion Under Prospect Theory: A Parameter-Free Measurement Management Science, October 1, 2007; 53(10): 1659 - 1674. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
H. Bleichrodt, J. M. Abellan-Perpinan, J. L. Pinto-Prades, and I. Mendez-Martinez Resolving Inconsistencies in Utility Measurement Under Risk: Tests of Generalizations of Expected Utility Management Science, March 1, 2007; 53(3): 469 - 482. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
D. Faro and Y. Rottenstreich Affect, Empathy, and Regressive Mispredictions of Others' Preferences Under Risk Management Science, April 1, 2006; 52(4): 529 - 541. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. E. Smith and D. von Winterfeldt Anniversary Article: Decision Analysis in Management Science Management Science, May 1, 2004; 50(5): 561 - 574. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. M. E. Pennings and A. Smidts The Shape of Utility Functions and Organizational Behavior Management Science, September 1, 2003; 49(9): 1251 - 1263. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 V. Kobberling and P. P. Wakker Preference Foundations for Nonexpected Utility: A Generalized and Simplified Technique Mathematics of Operations Research, August 1, 2003; 28(3): 395 - 423. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
R. M. Anderson and B. F. Hobbs Using a Bayesian Approach to Quantify Scale Compatibility Bias Management Science, December 1, 2002; 48(12): 1555 - 1568. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
