IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/grdene/v25y2016i4d10.1007_s10726-015-9459-1.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Sample Survey Based Linguistic MADM Method with Prospect Theory for Online Shopping Problems

Author

Listed:
  • Shuli Liu

    (Southeast University)

  • Xinwang Liu

    (Southeast University)

Abstract

In MADM problems, the attributes are often rated in linguistic variables, some researchers transform them into numerical values through some formulas. However, it might be inconsistent with real human thinking in some extent. In order to deal with such problems, a sample survey based MADM method with prospect theory is proposed. Firstly, through sampling survey, we collect the data in single point format corresponding to the words, and establish the codebook by mapping words into fuzzy sets, after that fuzzy operation rules are suitable for them. Secondly, based on the reference points, the gain and/or loss matrix is obtained, in accordance with the value function, the prospect value matrix is constructed. Finally, if the attributes are independent, the weighted prospect value of each alternative is computed, if the attributes are dependent, the Choquet integral based prospect value of each alternative is computed. The alternatives are ranked in descending order respect to the defuzzified values. The first alternative is chosen as the best decision result. The feasibility of the proposed method is illustrated through an application in online shopping problem from real life.

Suggested Citation

  • Shuli Liu & Xinwang Liu, 2016. "A Sample Survey Based Linguistic MADM Method with Prospect Theory for Online Shopping Problems," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 25(4), pages 749-774, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:grdene:v:25:y:2016:i:4:d:10.1007_s10726-015-9459-1
    DOI: 10.1007/s10726-015-9459-1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10726-015-9459-1
    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/s10726-015-9459-1?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. Zhi-Ping Fan & Xiao Zhang & Yan-Ru Zhao & Fa-Dong Chen, 2013. "Multiple Attribute Decision Making With Multiple Formats Of Attribute Aspirations: A Method Based On Prospect Theory," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 12(04), pages 711-727.
    2. Jan Ondrus & Tung Bui & Yves Pigneur, 2015. "A Foresight Support System Using MCDM Methods," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 24(2), pages 333-358, March.
    3. 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.
    4. Amos Tversky & Daniel Kahneman, 1991. "Loss Aversion in Riskless Choice: A Reference-Dependent Model," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 106(4), pages 1039-1061.
    5. Jessop, Alan, 2014. "IMP: A decision aid for multiattribute evaluation using imprecise weight estimates," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 18-29.
    6. Madjid Tavana & Kaveh Khalili-Damghani & Rahman Rahmatian, 2015. "A hybrid fuzzy MCDM method for measuring the performance of publicly held pharmaceutical companies," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 226(1), pages 589-621, March.
    7. Joshi, Deepa & Kumar, Sanjay, 2016. "Interval-valued intuitionistic hesitant fuzzy Choquet integral based TOPSIS method for multi-criteria group decision making," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 248(1), pages 183-191.
    8. Mohammed Abdellaoui & Emmanuel Kemel, 2014. "Eliciting Prospect Theory When Consequences Are Measured in Time Units: “Time Is Not Money”," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 60(7), pages 1844-1859, July.
    9. Anna M. Cianci & Diana Falsetta, 2008. "Impact of investors’ status on their evaluation of positive and negative, and past and future information," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 48(5), pages 719-739, December.
    10. B Zhu & Z S Xu, 2013. "Hesitant fuzzy Bonferroni means for multi-criteria decision making," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 64(12), pages 1831-1840, December.
    11. Wan, Shu-Ping & Li, Deng-Feng, 2013. "Fuzzy LINMAP approach to heterogeneous MADM considering comparisons of alternatives with hesitation degrees," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 41(6), pages 925-940.
    12. Vicky Henderson, 2012. "Prospect Theory, Liquidation, and the Disposition Effect," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 58(2), pages 445-460, February.
    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. Jian-Wu Bi & Tian-Yu Han & Yanbo Yao & Hui Li, 2022. "Ranking hotels through multi-dimensional hotel information: a method considering travelers’ preferences and expectations," Information Technology & Tourism, Springer, vol. 24(1), pages 127-155, March.
    2. Wenhui Zhou & Dongmei Wang & Weixiang Huang & Pengfei Guo, 2021. "To Pool or Not to Pool? The Effect of Loss Aversion on Queue Configurations," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 30(11), pages 4258-4272, November.
    3. Youki Kohsaka & Grzegorz Mardyla & Shinji Takenaka & Yoshiro Tsutsui, 2017. "Disposition Effect and Diminishing Sensitivity: An Analysis Based on a Simulated Experimental Stock Market," Journal of Behavioral Finance, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 18(2), pages 189-201, April.
    4. Attema, Arthur E. & Brouwer, Werner B.F., 2012. "A test of independence of discounting from quality of life," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 22-34.
    5. Junior, Peterson Owusu & Tiwari, Aviral Kumar & Padhan, Hemachandra & Alagidede, Imhotep, 2020. "Analysis of EEMD-based quantile-in-quantile approach on spot- futures prices of energy and precious metals in India," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 68(C).
    6. Uriel Procaccia & Uzi Segal, 2003. "Super Majoritarianism and the Endowment Effect," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 55(3), pages 181-207, November.
    7. Mariya Burdina & Scott Hiller, 2021. "When Falling Just Short is a Good Thing: The Effect of Past Performance on Improvement," Journal of Sports Economics, , vol. 22(7), pages 777-798, October.
    8. Klein, Martin & Deissenroth, Marc, 2017. "When do households invest in solar photovoltaics? An application of prospect theory," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 270-278.
    9. Wang, Suxin & Rong, Ximin & Zhao, Hui, 2019. "Optimal investment and benefit payment strategy under loss aversion for target benefit pension plans," Applied Mathematics and Computation, Elsevier, vol. 346(C), pages 205-218.
    10. A. Peter McGraw & Eldar Shafir & Alexander Todorov, 2010. "Valuing Money and Things: Why a $20 Item Can Be Worth More and Less Than $20," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 56(5), pages 816-830, May.
    11. Bowman, David & Minehart, Deborah & Rabin, Matthew, 1999. "Loss aversion in a consumption-savings model," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 38(2), pages 155-178, February.
    12. Joost M. E. Pennings & Ale Smidts, 2003. "The Shape of Utility Functions and Organizational Behavior," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 49(9), pages 1251-1263, September.
    13. Birnbaum, Michael H. & Zimmermann, Jacqueline M., 1998. "Buying and Selling Prices of Investments: Configural Weight Model of Interactions Predicts Violations of Joint Independence," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 74(2), pages 145-187, May.
    14. Francisco Gomes & Michael Haliassos & Tarun Ramadorai, 2021. "Household Finance," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 59(3), pages 919-1000, September.
    15. Fershtman, Chaim, 1996. "On the value of incumbency managerial reference points and loss aversion," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 17(2), pages 245-257, April.
    16. Oliver, Adam, 2003. "The internal consistency of the standard gamble: tests after adjusting for prospect theory," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 159, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    17. 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.
    18. Ulrich Schmidt & Horst Zank, 2012. "A genuine foundation for prospect theory," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 45(2), pages 97-113, October.
    19. Pieter Balcaen & Cind Du Bois & Caroline Buts, 2021. "The Hybridisation of Conflict: A Prospect Theoretic Analysis," Games, MDPI, vol. 12(4), pages 1-15, October.
    20. Peters, Hans, 2012. "A preference foundation for constant loss aversion," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 21-25.

    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:grdene:v:25:y:2016:i:4:d:10.1007_s10726-015-9459-1. 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.