IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/comgts/v21y2024i2d10.1007_s10287-024-00521-2.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Optimizing hedonic editing for multiple outcomes: an algorithm

Author

Listed:
  • Martín Egozcue

    (University of Montevideo)

  • Luis Fuentes García

    (University of Coruña)

Abstract

We study hedonic editing principles that aim to find individuals’ maximum utility when confronted with multiple outcomes Thaler (Mark Sci 4:199–214, 1985). These principles have been primarily defined and studied for only two outcomes. However, when dealing with more than two outcomes, the principles become more ambiguous, and some of them may not continue to be valid. To address this, we present an algorithm designed to find the best solution over a partition set of a given vector of n outcomes. We demonstrate that this algorithm identifies the best-majorized vector for up to four outcomes and establish the conditions under which this vector is optimal for n outcomes. Our algorithm is fast since it requires at most $$n-1$$ n - 1 steps. We provide a detailed analysis of the algorithm’s performance, characterizing the conditions that guarantee the optimal solution and identifying cases where the algorithm may not converge to the optimal solution. Nevertheless, in these cases, we demonstrate through numerical analysis that it can find the optimal solution with a high accuracy rate in most ’practical’ instances, making it a reliable tool for solving hedonic editing problems.

Suggested Citation

  • Martín Egozcue & Luis Fuentes García, 2024. "Optimizing hedonic editing for multiple outcomes: an algorithm," Computational Management Science, Springer, vol. 21(2), pages 1-25, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:comgts:v:21:y:2024:i:2:d:10.1007_s10287-024-00521-2
    DOI: 10.1007/s10287-024-00521-2
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10287-024-00521-2
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10287-024-00521-2?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    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. Haijiao Cui & Bin Cao & Aimei Li & Zhaohui Li, 2023. "A General Model of Subjective Value and Stimulus-Intensity-Sensitive Hedonic Editing Strategy," Journal of Happiness Studies, Springer, vol. 24(3), pages 1191-1217, March.
    2. Zhao, Min & Xia, Lan, 2021. "Joint or separate? The effect of visual presentation on imagery and product evaluation," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 38(4), pages 935-952.
    3. Richard H. Thaler, 2008. "Mental Accounting and Consumer Choice," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 27(1), pages 15-25, 01-02.
    4. Changha Jin & Paul Gallimore, 2010. "The effects of information presentation on real estate market perceptions," Journal of Property Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 27(3), pages 239-246, April.
    5. Dhami, Sanjit, 2016. "The Foundations of Behavioral Economic Analysis," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780198715535.
    6. Dubra, Juan & Egozcue, Martín & García, Luis Fuentes, 2019. "Optimal consumption sequences under habit formation and satiation," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 70-76.
    7. 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.
    8. Luc Meunier & Sima Ohadi, 2023. "When are two portfolios better than one? A prospect theory approach," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 94(3), pages 503-538, April.
    9. Peter Jarnebrant & Olivier Toubia & Eric Johnson, 2009. "The Silver Lining Effect: Formal Analysis and Experiments," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 55(11), pages 1832-1841, November.
    10. Li, Minqiang & Feng, Haiyang & Chen, Fuzan & Kou, Jisong, 2013. "Numerical investigation on mixed bundling and pricing of information products," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 144(2), pages 560-571.
    11. Bui, Dien Giau & Chen, Yehning & Chen, Yan-Shing & Lin, Chih-Yung, 2023. "Managerial ability and financial statement disaggregation decisions," Journal of Empirical Finance, Elsevier, vol. 74(C).
    12. Henry Stott, 2006. "Cumulative prospect theory's functional menagerie," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 32(2), pages 101-130, March.
    13. Ningyu Tang & Jingqiu Chen & Kaili Zhang & Thomas Li-Ping Tang, 2018. "Monetary Wisdom: How Do Investors Use Love of Money to Frame Stock Volatility and Enhance Stock Happiness?," Journal of Happiness Studies, Springer, vol. 19(6), pages 1831-1862, August.
    14. Sunhae Sul & Jennifer Kim & Incheol Choi, 2013. "Subjective Well-Being and Hedonic Editing: How Happy People Maximize Joint Outcomes of Loss and Gain," Journal of Happiness Studies, Springer, vol. 14(4), pages 1409-1430, August.
    15. Kobberling, Veronika & Wakker, Peter P., 2005. "An index of loss aversion," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 122(1), pages 119-131, May.
    16. Tai-Yuen Hon & Massoud Moslehpour & Kai-Yin Woo, 2021. "Review on Behavioral Finance with Empirical Evidence," Advances in Decision Sciences, Asia University, Taiwan, vol. 25(4), pages 15-41, December.
    17. Barrafrem, Kinga & Västfjäll, Daniel & Tinghög, Gustav, 2021. "The arithmetic of outcome editing in financial and social domains," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 86(C).
    18. al-Nowaihi, Ali & Bradley, Ian & Dhami, Sanjit, 2008. "A note on the utility function under prospect theory," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 99(2), pages 337-339, May.
    19. Hellmann, Andreas, 2016. "The role of accounting in behavioral finance," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 9(C), pages 39-42.
    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. Kpegli, Yao Thibaut & Corgnet, Brice & Zylbersztejn, Adam, 2023. "All at once! A comprehensive and tractable semi-parametric method to elicit prospect theory components," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 104(C).
    2. Martín Egozcue & Sébastien Massoni & Wing-Keung Wong & RiÄ ardas Zitikis, 2012. "Integration-segregation decisions under general value functions: "Create your own bundle — choose 1, 2, or all 3!"," Documents de travail du Centre d'Economie de la Sorbonne 12057, Université Panthéon-Sorbonne (Paris 1), Centre d'Economie de la Sorbonne.
    3. 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.
    4. Olivier Toubia & Eric Johnson & Theodoros Evgeniou & Philippe Delquié, 2013. "Dynamic Experiments for Estimating Preferences: An Adaptive Method of Eliciting Time and Risk Parameters," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 59(3), pages 613-640, June.
    5. Pranav Jindal, 2015. "Risk Preferences and Demand Drivers of Extended Warranties," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 34(1), pages 39-58, January.
    6. Luc Meunier & Sima Ohadi, 2023. "When are two portfolios better than one? A prospect theory approach," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 94(3), pages 503-538, April.
    7. Martín Egozcue & Sébastien Massoni & Wing-Keung Wong & Ričardas Zitikis, 2012. "Integration-segregation decisions under general value functions : "Create your own bundle -- choose 1, 2, or all 3 !"," Post-Print halshs-00747008, HAL.
    8. Walasek, Lukasz & Mullett, Timothy L. & Stewart, Neil, 2024. "A meta-analysis of loss aversion in risky contexts," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 103(C).
    9. Han Bleichrodt & Olivier L’haridon, 2023. "Prospect theory’s loss aversion is robust to stake size," Post-Print hal-04126663, HAL.
    10. Jae‐Do Song, 2023. "Excessive banking preference in emissions trading," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 44(1), pages 448-458, January.
    11. Ryan O. Murphy & Robert H. W. ten Brincke, 2018. "Hierarchical Maximum Likelihood Parameter Estimation for Cumulative Prospect Theory: Improving the Reliability of Individual Risk Parameter Estimates," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(1), pages 308-328, January.
    12. Aurélien Baillon & Han Bleichrodt & Vitalie Spinu, 2020. "Searching for the Reference Point," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 66(1), pages 93-112, January.
    13. Haijiao Cui & Bin Cao & Aimei Li & Zhaohui Li, 2023. "A General Model of Subjective Value and Stimulus-Intensity-Sensitive Hedonic Editing Strategy," Journal of Happiness Studies, Springer, vol. 24(3), pages 1191-1217, March.
    14. Leonardo Ivarola & Gustavo Marqués, 2012. "Behavioural Procedural Models – a multipurpose mechanistic account," The Journal of Philosophical Economics, Bucharest Academy of Economic Studies, The Journal of Philosophical Economics, vol. 5(2), pages 84-108, May.
    15. Kim Kaivanto, 2014. "The Effect of Decentralized Behavioral Decision Making on System‐Level Risk," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(12), pages 2121-2142, December.
    16. Attema, Arthur E. & Brouwer, Werner B.F. & l’Haridon, Olivier, 2013. "Prospect theory in the health domain: A quantitative assessment," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(6), pages 1057-1065.
    17. Andrea C. Hupman & Jay Simon, 2023. "The Legacy of Peter Fishburn: Foundational Work and Lasting Impact," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 20(1), pages 1-15, March.
    18. Balcombe, Kelvin & Bardsley, Nicholas & Dadzie, Sam & Fraser, Iain, 2019. "Estimating parametric loss aversion with prospect theory: Recognising and dealing with size dependence," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 162(C), pages 106-119.
    19. Mohammed Abdellaoui & Han Bleichrodt & Olivier l'Haridon & Corina Paraschiv, 2013. "Is There One Unifying Concept of Utility?An Experimental Comparison of Utility Under Risk and Utility Over Time," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 59(9), pages 2153-2169, September.
    20. Martín Egozcue & Luis Fuentes García & Ričardas Zitikis, 2023. "The Slicing Method: Determining Insensitivity Regions of Probability Weighting Functions," Computational Economics, Springer;Society for Computational Economics, vol. 61(4), pages 1369-1402, April.

    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:spr:comgts:v:21:y:2024:i:2:d:10.1007_s10287-024-00521-2. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.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.