目标导向多参考点属性价值模型及评价方法

doi:10.16381/j.cnki.issn1003-207x.2017.07.018

中国管理科学 ›› 2017, Vol. 25 ›› Issue (7): 163-175.doi: 10.16381/j.cnki.issn1003-207x.2017.07.018

目标导向多参考点属性价值模型及评价方法

李春好, 李巍, 李孟姣, 马慧欣, 何娟, 丁丽霞, 田波

吉林大学管理学院, 吉林长春 130022

收稿日期:2016-03-10 修回日期:2017-03-06 出版日期:2017-07-20 发布日期:2017-09-25
通讯作者: 李春好(1966-),男(汉族),辽宁盖州人,吉林大学管理学院,教授,博士生导师,副院长,管理学博士/博士后,研究方向:评价与决策理论方法,E-mail:jyhlichunhao@126.com.. E-mail:jyhlichunhao@126.com.
基金资助:
国家自然科学基金资助项目（71371083）；长白山学者特聘教授奖励计划（2014018）；吉林大学高峰学科建设项目（2014GSGL）

Target-oriented Model and Approach for Attribute Value Evaluation with Multiple Reference Points

LI Chun-hao, LI Wei, LI Meng-jiao, MA Hui-xin, HE Juan, DING Li-xia, TIAN Bo

School of Management, Jilin University, Changchun 130022, China

Received:2016-03-10 Revised:2017-03-06 Online:2017-07-20 Published:2017-09-25

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 针对已有规范性决策研究与描述性决策研究尚不能对多参考点共存情形属性价值评价予以全面、直接决策工具支持的不足，通过引入竞争对局及其偏好得分概念提出了基于目标导向效用理论和对局效用比较的新规范性价值函数，在此基础上通过结合范围—频率（RF）理论模型，给出了能够兼顾规范性与描述性两个决策框架的规约性目标导向多参考点属性价值模型及评价方法。相对于规范性目标导向期望价值理论而言，新价值函数在全面科学反映形式多样的决策者偏好结构上具有更为宽广的适用性。相对于RF模型等行为决策理论而言，目标导向多参考点属性价值模型及评价方法克服了行为决策理论模型因其描述性框架性质而不能直接支持决策者属性价值评价的不足，能够对多决策参考点共存情形直接指导决策者的属性价值评价。另外，目标导向多参考点属性价值评价方法将决策目标看成是直接影响方案评价与选择的决策变量，因此也具有发展与深化多属性决策理论的科学价值。模拟验证分析与方法应用表明：目标导向多参考点属性价值评价方法不仅具有广泛的应用适用性，而且在价值评价上也展示出了较强的科学合理性。

关键词: 属性价值, 参考点, 目标导向效用, 对局效用, 范围&mdash, 频率理论

Abstract: To overcome the shortage of current normative and descriptive studies of decision-making, i.e., less capability of providing direct comprehensive supports for attribute value evaluation with multiple reference points (MRPs), two concepts including competitive games (CGs) and CG preference scores (CGPSs) are incorporated with the target-oriented utility/value theory (TOUVT), by which a new normative attribute value function based on TOUVT and the game-preference comparison, shorted as NAVF-T-GPC, is thus presented. Based on NAVF-T-GPC and the range-frequency (R-F) model, a prescriptive linear programming (PLP) model as well as its corresponding appraisal approach, considered as a merge of normative decision-making with descriptive decision-making, is built for directly aiding decision makers with MRPs to evaluate attribute values. According to the presented approach, when a specific performance (x) lies in(x_r,x_r+1), its attribute value is given by ?(x)=[∑r_s=1Δ^*(x_s)p(x_s)]/[∑_s=1^RΔ^*(x_s)p(x_s)], where x_s(x_r) denotes the s^th(r^th) reference point or target object in the target attribute interval [x_L,x_H], s=1,…,R,r=1,…,R-1, Δ^*(x_s) reflecting the CGPS of x_s is determined by the PLP model, and p(x_s) represents the occurrence probability of x_s. Note that the PLP model embodies such key academic thoughts that the attribute value of performance x(x_L≤x≤x_H), behaviorally disclosed by the R-F model, is only a linear approximation to that determined by NAVF-T-GPC. Compared with TOUVT, in which the CGPSs of different attribute performances are supposed to be equal, NAVF-T-GPC is more suitable for reasonably reflecting various decision-makers' complex preference structure since unequal CGPSs related with MRPs are permitted. Compared with behavioral decision-making theories such as the R-F theory/model, which can not be directly applied to real-world decisions because of its descriptive nature, the presented approach is capable of directly aiding decision makers with MRPs. Besides, the approach is built from a new viewpoint of taking the decision goal as a variable directly affecting alternative evaluation and alternative selection, and thus of importance to develop the multiple attribute decision-making theory. Simulation analysis and application comparison show that the presented approach can be widely applied to real-world decisions and has advantages in reasonably evaluating attribute values over the current subjective method based on equally-spaced value judgments.

Key words: attribute value, reference point, target-oriented utility, game utility, range-frequency theory

中图分类号:

F224

李春好, 李巍, 李孟姣, 马慧欣, 何娟, 丁丽霞, 田波. 目标导向多参考点属性价值模型及评价方法[J]. 中国管理科学, 2017, 25(7): 163-175.

LI Chun-hao, LI Wei, LI Meng-jiao, MA Hui-xin, HE Juan, DING Li-xia, TIAN Bo. Target-oriented Model and Approach for Attribute Value Evaluation with Multiple Reference Points[J]. Chinese Journal of Management Science, 2017, 25(7): 163-175.

参考文献

[1] von Winterfeldt D, Edwards W. Decision analysis and behavioral research[M]. New York: Cambridge University Press,1986.

[2] Bell D E, Raiffa H, Tversky A. Decision making:Descriptive, normative, and prescriptive interactions[M]. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1988.

[3] French S, Rios I D. Statistical decision theory[M]. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000.

[4] Dyer J S, Sarin R K. Measurable multi-attribute value functions[J]. Operations Research, 1979, 27(4): 810-822.

[5] Fishburn P C. Utility theory for decision making[M]. New York: Wiley, 1970.

[6] Keeney R, Raiffa H. Decisions with multiple objectives: Preferences and value tradeoffs[M]. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1993.

[7] Kahneman D, Tversky, A. Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk[J]. Econometrica, 1979, 47(2): 263-292.

[8] 郝晶晶, 朱建军, 刘思峰. 基于前景理论的多阶段随机多准则决策方法[J]. 中国管理科学, 2015,23(1):73-81.

[9] 田丽君,黄海军,许岩. 具有异质参考点的多用户网络均衡模型[J]. 管理科学学报, 2014,17(7):1-9.

[10] 樊治平,刘洋,沈荣鉴. 基于前景理论的突发事件应急响应的风险决策方法[J]. 系统工程理论与实践, 2012, 32(5): 977-984.

[11] Friedman M, Savage L J. The utility analysis of choices involving risk[J]. Journal of Political Economy, 1948, 56(4): 279-304.

[12] Levy M, Levy H. Prospect theory: Much ado about nothing[J]. Management Science, 2002, 48(10): 1334-1349.

[13] Markowitz H M. The utility of wealth[J]. Journal of Political Economy, 1952, 60(2): 151-156.

[14] Ordonez L D, Connolly T, Coughlan R. Multiple reference points in satisfaction and fairness assessment[J]. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 2000, 13(3): 329-344.

[15] Parducci A. Category judgment: A range-frequency model [J]. Psychological Review, 1965, 72(6): 407-418.

[16] Wedell D H, Parducci A, Roman D. Student perceptions of fair grading[J]. The American Journal of Psychology, 1989, 102(2): 233-248.

[17] Niedrich R W, Weathers D, Hill R C, et al. Specifying price judgments with range-frequency theory in models of brand choice[J]. Journal of Marketing Research, 2009, 46(5): 693-702.

[18] Bordley R, Kirkwood F, Craig W. Multi-attribute preference analysis with performance targets[J]. Operations Research, 2004, 52(6): 823-835.

[19] Castagnoli E, LiCalzi M. Expected utility without utility[J]. Theory and Decision, 1996, 41(3): 281-301.

[20] Brown D B, Giorgi E D, Sim M. Aspirational preferences and their representation by risk measures[J]. Management Science, 2012, 58(11): 2095-2113.

[21] Niedrich R W, Sharma S, Wedell D H. Reference price and price perceptions: a comparison of alternative models[J]. Journal of Consumer Research, 2001, 28(3): 339-354.

[22] Stewart N, Chater N, Brown G. Decision by sampling[J]. Cognitive Psychology, 2006, 53(1):1-26.

[23] Saaty T L. The analytic hierarchy process[M]. New York: McGraw-Hill,1980.

目标导向多参考点属性价值模型及评价方法

Target-oriented Model and Approach for Attribute Value Evaluation with Multiple Reference Points

PDF (PC)

可视化

被引次数

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

参考文献

相关文章 2

Metrics

本文评价

推荐阅读 0

[1]	戴建华, 马海云, 吴滢滢. 网店信息呈现的框架效应对消费者购买决策的影响研究[J]. 中国管理科学, 2020, 28(3): 152-161.
[2]	郝晶晶, 朱建军, 刘思峰. 基于前景理论的多阶段随机多准则决策方法[J]. 中国管理科学, 2015, 23(1): 73-81.