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(xr,xr+1), its attribute value is given by ?(x)=[∑rs=1Δ*(xs)p(xs)]/[∑s=1RΔ*(xs)p(xs)], where xs(xr) denotes the sth(rth) reference point or target object in the target attribute interval [xL,xH], s=1,…,R,r=1,…,R-1, Δ*(xs) reflecting the CGPS of xs is determined by the PLP model, and p(xs) represents the occurrence probability of xs. Note that the PLP model embodies such key academic thoughts that the attribute value of performance x(xL≤x≤xH), 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.
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
.
DOI: 10.16381/j.cnki.issn1003-207x.2017.07.018
[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.
