IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jrpoli/v21y1995i3p169-178.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Defining markets for new materials : Developing a utility methodology with case application

Author

Listed:
  • Mangin, Christophe G. E.
  • de Neufville, Richard
  • Field, Frank III
  • Clark, Joel

Abstract

No abstract is available for this item.

Suggested Citation

  • Mangin, Christophe G. E. & de Neufville, Richard & Field, Frank III & Clark, Joel, 1995. "Defining markets for new materials : Developing a utility methodology with case application," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 21(3), pages 169-178, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:jrpoli:v:21:y:1995:i:3:p:169-178
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0301-4207(96)89787-X
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Mark McCord & Richard de Neufville, 1986. ""Lottery Equivalents": Reduction of the Certainty Effect Problem in Utility Assessment," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 32(1), pages 56-60, January.
    2. Ralph L. Keeney, 1971. "Utility Independence and Preferences for Multiattributed Consequences," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 19(4), pages 875-893, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Barbiroli, Giancarlo & Focacci, Antonio, 1999. "The definition and measurement of evolutionary materials," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 25(3), pages 161-171, September.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Lévesque, Moren & Schade, Christian, 2002. "Intuitive optimizing for time allocation decisions in newly formed ventures," SFB 373 Discussion Papers 2002,24, Humboldt University of Berlin, Interdisciplinary Research Project 373: Quantification and Simulation of Economic Processes.
    2. Enrico Diecidue & Peter Wakker & Marcel Zeelenberg, 2007. "Eliciting decision weights by adapting de Finetti’s betting-odds method to prospect theory," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 34(3), pages 179-199, June.
    3. Diecidue, E. & Schmidt, U. & Wakker, P.P., 2000. "A Theory of the Gambling Effect," Discussion Paper 2000-75, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.
    4. Abdellaoui, Mohammed & Bleichrodt, Han, 2007. "Eliciting Gul's theory of disappointment aversion by the tradeoff method," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 28(6), pages 631-645, December.
    5. Jakusch, Sven Thorsten & Meyer, Steffen & Hackethal, Andreas, 2019. "Taming models of prospect theory in the wild? Estimation of Vlcek and Hens (2011)," SAFE Working Paper Series 146, Leibniz Institute for Financial Research SAFE, revised 2019.
    6. Antoni Bosch-Domènech & Joaquim Silvestre, 2013. "Measuring risk aversion with lists: a new bias," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 75(4), pages 465-496, October.
    7. Essid, Samir, 1997. "Choice under risk with certainty and potential effects: A general axiomatic model," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 34(3), pages 223-247, October.
    8. Levesque, Moren & Schade, Christian, 2005. "Intuitive optimizing: experimental findings on time allocation decisions with newly formed ventures," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 20(3), pages 313-342, May.
    9. Garrett, Vicki & Koontz, Tomas M., 2008. "Breaking the cycle: Producer and consumer perspectives on the non-adoption of passive solar housing in the US," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(4), pages 1551-1566, April.
    10. Mohammed Abdellaoui & Olivier L'Haridon & Corina Paraschiv, 2011. "Experienced vs. Described Uncertainty: Do We Need Two Prospect Theory Specifications?," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 57(10), pages 1879-1895, October.
    11. Anne Spencer, 2001. "The Implications of Linking Questions within the SG and TTO Methods," Working Papers 438, Queen Mary University of London, School of Economics and Finance.
    12. Pavlo Blavatskyy, "undated". "Efficient elicitation of utility and probability weighting functions," IEW - Working Papers 211, Institute for Empirical Research in Economics - University of Zurich.
    13. Schneider, Sebastian O. & Sutter, Matthias, 2020. "Higher Order Risk Preferences: Experimental Measures, Determinants and Related Field Behavior," VfS Annual Conference 2020 (Virtual Conference): Gender Economics 224643, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    14. Jonathan W. Leland, 1998. "Similarity Judgments in Choice Under Uncertainty: A Reinterpretation of the Predictions of Regret Theory," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 44(5), pages 659-672, May.
    15. Han Bleichrodt & Jose Maria Abellan-Perpiñan & Jose Luis Pinto-Prades & Ildefonso Mendez-Martinez, 2007. "Resolving Inconsistencies in Utility Measurement Under Risk: Tests of Generalizations of Expected Utility," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 53(3), pages 469-482, March.
    16. Harin, Alexander, 2014. "Problems of utility and prospect theories. A discontinuity of Prelec’s function," MPRA Paper 61027, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    17. Alexander Vinel & Pavlo A. Krokhmal, 2017. "Certainty equivalent measures of risk," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 249(1), pages 75-95, February.
    18. Han Bleichrodt & Ulrich Schmidt, 2002. "A Context-Dependent Model of the Gambling Effect," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 48(6), pages 802-812, June.
    19. Bruno Casal & Eva Rodríguez-Míguez & Berta Rivera, 2020. "Measuring intangible cost-of-morbidity due to substance dependence: implications of using alternative preference-based instruments," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 21(7), pages 1039-1048, September.
    20. Donkers, A.C.D. & Lourenço, C.J.S. & Dellaert, B.G.C. & Goldstein, D.G., 2013. "Using Preferred Outcome Distributions to Estimate Value and Probability Weighting Functions in Decisions under Risk," ERIM Report Series Research in Management ERS-2013-005-MKT, Erasmus Research Institute of Management (ERIM), ERIM is the joint research institute of the Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University and the Erasmus School of Economics (ESE) at Erasmus University Rotterdam.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:jrpoli:v:21:y:1995:i:3:p:169-178. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/inca/30467 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.