IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jmathe/v12y2024i10p1519-d1393780.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A DEA Game Cross-Efficiency Model with Loss Aversion for Contractor Selection

Author

Listed:
  • Huixia Huang

    (Business School, Foshan University, Foshan 528225, China
    Research Centre for Innovation & Economic Transformation, Research Institute of Social Sciences in Guangdong Province, Foshan 528225, China)

  • Chi Zhou

    (School of Management, Tianjin University of Technology, Tianjin 300384, China)

  • Hepu Deng

    (School of Accounting, Information Systems and Supply Chain, RMIT University, Melbourne, VIC 3000, Australia)

Abstract

Evaluating and selecting appropriate contractors is critical to the success of specific construction projects in the building industry. Existing approaches for addressing this problem are unsatisfactory due to the ignorance of the multi-dimensional nature of the evaluation process and inappropriate consideration of existent risks. This study presents a DEA game cross-efficiency model with loss aversion for evaluating and selecting specific contractors. The competitiveness of the evaluation process is modeled using game theory with respect to the adoption of the cross-efficiency model. The attitude of the decision maker toward risks is tackled with the use of loss aversion, which is a phenomenon formalized in prospect theory. As a result, the proposed approach can adequately screen available contractors through prequalification and adequately consider the attitude of the decision maker toward risks, leading to effective decisions being made. An example is presented to demonstrate the applicability of the proposed model in evaluating and selecting appropriate contractors for specific construction projects. The results show that the proposed model is effective and efficient in producing a unique solution for contractor selection through appropriate modeling of the multi-dimensional contractor selection process and adequate consideration of the competition between the contractors and the attitude of the decision maker toward risks in practical situations.

Suggested Citation

  • Huixia Huang & Chi Zhou & Hepu Deng, 2024. "A DEA Game Cross-Efficiency Model with Loss Aversion for Contractor Selection," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 12(10), pages 1-18, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jmathe:v:12:y:2024:i:10:p:1519-:d:1393780
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7390/12/10/1519/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7390/12/10/1519/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Tversky, Amos & Kahneman, Daniel, 1992. "Advances in Prospect Theory: Cumulative Representation of Uncertainty," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 5(4), pages 297-323, October.
    2. Charnes, A. & Cooper, W. W. & Rhodes, E., 1978. "Measuring the efficiency of decision making units," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 2(6), pages 429-444, November.
    3. Kuei-Hu Chang & Ali Ahmadian, 2021. "A Novel Contractor Selection Technique Using the Extended PROMETHEE II Method," Mathematical Problems in Engineering, Hindawi, vol. 2021, pages 1-11, November.
    4. Liang Liang & Jie Wu & Wade D. Cook & Joe Zhu, 2008. "The DEA Game Cross-Efficiency Model and Its Nash Equilibrium," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 56(5), pages 1278-1288, October.
    5. Mohammed Abdellaoui & Han Bleichrodt & Corina Paraschiv, 2007. "Loss Aversion Under Prospect Theory: A Parameter-Free Measurement," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 53(10), pages 1659-1674, October.
    6. Chee Wong & Gary Holt & Patricia Cooper, 2000. "Lowest price or value? Investigation of UK construction clients' tender selection process," Construction Management and Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 18(7), pages 767-774.
    7. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    8. Yu Sun & Huixia Huang & Chi Zhou, 2016. "DEA Game Cross-Efficiency Model to Urban Public Infrastructure Investment Comprehensive Efficiency of China," Mathematical Problems in Engineering, Hindawi, vol. 2016, pages 1-10, March.
    9. Chi Zhou & Jin Peng & Zhibing Liu & Binwei Dong, 2019. "Optimal incentive contracts under loss aversion and inequity aversion," Fuzzy Optimization and Decision Making, Springer, vol. 18(1), pages 85-102, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Ganji, S.S. & Dehghani, Alireza & Ajirlu, Shahrouz Fathi, 2024. "Evaluation of intercity road passenger transportation using a novel double-frontier game-regret-cross-efficiency," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 93(C).
    2. Shi, Hai-Liu & Chen, Sheng-Qun & Chen, Lei & Wang, Ying-Ming, 2021. "A neutral cross-efficiency evaluation method based on interval reference points in consideration of bounded rational behavior," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 290(3), pages 1098-1110.
    3. Cui, Yuan & Pan, Hao & Huang, Yi-Di & Yang, Guo-liang, 2024. "How can sociological theories provide legitimacy to eco-efficiency evaluations? Embark on a journey toward understanding," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 93(C).
    4. Lei Chen & Ying-Ming Wang & Yan Huang, 2020. "Cross-efficiency aggregation method based on prospect consensus process," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 288(1), pages 115-135, May.
    5. Luís Santos-Pinto & Adrian Bruhin & José Mata & Thomas Åstebro, 2015. "Detecting heterogeneous risk attitudes with mixed gambles," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 79(4), pages 573-600, December.
    6. Jonathan Chapman & Erik Snowberg & Stephanie Wang & Colin Camerer, 2018. "Loss Attitudes in the U.S. Population: Evidence from Dynamically Optimized Sequential Experimentation (DOSE)," NBER Working Papers 25072, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    7. Steinel, Wolfgang & Valtcheva, Kalina & Gross, Jörg & Celse, Jérémy & Max, Sylvain & Shalvi, Shaul, 2022. "(Dis)honesty in the face of uncertain gains or losses," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 90(C).
    8. 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.
    9. Ulrich Schmidt & Horst Zank, 2012. "A genuine foundation for prospect theory," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 45(2), pages 97-113, October.
    10. Jonathan P. Beauchamp & Daniel J. Benjamin & Christopher F. Chabris & David I. Laibson, 2015. "Controlling for the Compromise Effect Debiases Estimates of Risk Preference Parameters," NBER Working Papers 21792, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    11. Víctor González-Jiménez, 2021. "Incentive contracts when agents distort probabilities," Vienna Economics Papers vie2101, University of Vienna, Department of Economics.
    12. Servaas van Bilsen & Roger J. A. Laeven & Theo E. Nijman, 2020. "Consumption and Portfolio Choice Under Loss Aversion and Endogenous Updating of the Reference Level," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 66(9), pages 3927-3955, September.
    13. Attema, Arthur E. & Brouwer, Werner B.F. & l’Haridon, Olivier & Pinto, Jose Luis, 2016. "An elicitation of utility for quality of life under prospect theory," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 121-134.
    14. Garbarino, Ellen & Slonim, Robert & Villeval, Marie Claire, 2019. "Loss aversion and lying behavior," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 158(C), pages 379-393.
    15. Nathalie Etchart-Vincent & Olivier l’Haridon, 2011. "Monetary incentives in the loss domain and behavior toward risk: An experimental comparison of three reward schemes including real losses," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 42(1), pages 61-83, February.
    16. Heiko Karle & Heiner Schumacher & Rune Vølund, 2020. "Consumer search and the uncertainty effect," Working Papers of Department of Economics, Leuven 657766, KU Leuven, Faculty of Economics and Business (FEB), Department of Economics, Leuven.
    17. Pavlo Blavatskyy, 2021. "A simple non-parametric method for eliciting prospect theory's value function and measuring loss aversion under risk and ambiguity," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 91(3), pages 403-416, October.
    18. 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.
    19. Alexander L. Brown & Taisuke Imai & Ferdinand M. Vieider & Colin F. Camerer, 2024. "Meta-analysis of Empirical Estimates of Loss Aversion," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 62(2), pages 485-516, June.
    20. Georgalos, Konstantinos & Paya, Ivan & Peel, David A., 2021. "On the contribution of the Markowitz model of utility to explain risky choice in experimental research," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 182(C), pages 527-543.

    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:gam:jmathe:v:12:y:2024:i:10:p:1519-:d:1393780. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.