Behavioral models for complex decision analysis

被引:24
作者
Tamura, H [1 ]
机构
[1] Kansai Univ, Fac Engn, Suita, Osaka 5648680, Japan
关键词
decision analysis; modeling; behavioral model; utility theory; expected utility paradox; conflict resolution; ethical preference;
D O I
10.1016/j.ejor.2004.03.038
中图分类号
C93 [管理学];
学科分类号
12 ; 1201 ; 1202 ; 120202 ;
摘要
The focus of this paper is to propose some behavioral (or descriptive) models of individual decision making and group decision making under risk/uncertainty as follows: models to explain the violations of expected utility models for the individual decision making; and a model to describe the ethical consensus formation process among multi-agent conflicting decision makers. The former models extend Kahneman-Tversky model of prospect theory and resolve Allais and Ellsburg paradoxes. The later model extends additive/utility independence in consensus formation process to get more flexible preference structure among conflicting decision makers. (c) 2004 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:655 / 665
页数:11
相关论文
共 13 条
[1]  
[Anonymous], 1979, COLLECT CHOICE SOC
[2]  
[Anonymous], 1979, Expected Utility Hypotheses and the Allais Paradox, DOI [DOI 10.1007/978-94-015-7629-1, 10.1007/978-94-015-7629-1]
[3]   MEASURABLE MULTIATTRIBUTE VALUE FUNCTIONS [J].
DYER, JS ;
SARIN, RK .
OPERATIONS RESEARCH, 1979, 27 (04) :810-822
[4]   RISK, AMBIGUITY, AND THE SAVAGE AXIOMS [J].
ELLSBERG, D .
QUARTERLY JOURNAL OF ECONOMICS, 1961, 75 (04) :643-669
[5]  
FUJITA S, 2003, P 1 INT S SYST HUM S, P141
[6]   PROSPECT THEORY - ANALYSIS OF DECISION UNDER RISK [J].
KAHNEMAN, D ;
TVERSKY, A .
ECONOMETRICA, 1979, 47 (02) :263-291
[7]  
Keeney L.Ralph., 1993, Decisions with multiple objectives : preferences and value trade-offs
[8]  
KRANZ HD, 1971, FDN MEASUREMENT
[9]  
Shafer G., 1976, A mathematical theory of evidence, V76
[10]   Modeling and analysis of decision making problem for mitigating natural disaster risks [J].
Tamura, H ;
Yamamoto, K ;
Tomiyama, S ;
Hatono, I .
EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF OPERATIONAL RESEARCH, 2000, 122 (02) :461-468