IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/navres/v35y1988i6p597-613.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Utility assessment procedures for polynomial‐exponential functions

Author

Listed:
  • Peter H. Farquhar
  • Yutaka Nakamura

Abstract

This article develops a methodology for testing constant exchange risk properties and identifying an appropriate form for a decision maker's utility function. These risk properties characterize six different utility functions which are sums of products of polynomials and exponential functions. Such functional forms are commonly used in decision analysis applications. The practical advantage of this methodology is that these constant exchange risk properties eliminate the usual arbitrariness in the selection of a parametric utility function and often reduce the data requirements for subsequent estimation. The procedure is straightforward to apply. The decision maker need only provide certainty equivalents for two‐outcome gambles and determine the more‐preferred gamble in paired comparisons. The technical details of the procedure can be handled by interactive computer software.

Suggested Citation

  • Peter H. Farquhar & Yutaka Nakamura, 1988. "Utility assessment procedures for polynomial‐exponential functions," Naval Research Logistics (NRL), John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(6), pages 597-613, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:navres:v:35:y:1988:i:6:p:597-613
    DOI: 10.1002/1520-6750(198812)35:63.0.CO;2-Z
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/1520-6750(198812)35:63.0.CO;2-Z
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/1520-6750(198812)35:63.0.CO;2-Z?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Donald L. Keefer & Stephen M. Pollock, 1980. "Approximations and Sensitivity in Multiobjective Resource Allocation," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 28(1), pages 114-128, February.
    2. Jehoshua Eliashberg & John R. Hauser, 1985. "A Measurement Error Approach for Modeling Consumer Risk Preference," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 31(1), pages 1-25, January.
    3. J. G. Kallberg & W. T. Ziemba, 1983. "Comparison of Alternative Utility Functions in Portfolio Selection Problems," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 29(11), pages 1257-1276, November.
    4. Johann Pfanzag, 1959. "A general theory of measurement applications to utility," Naval Research Logistics Quarterly, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 6(4), pages 283-294, December.
    5. Ohlson, James A. & Kallio, Markku, 1975. "A Note on the Representation of Bounded Utility Functions Defined on [a, ∞)," Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 10(2), pages 377-379, June.
    6. Hassett, Matt & Stephen Sears, R. & Trennepohl, Gary L., 1985. "Asset preference, skewness, and the measurement of expected utility," Journal of Economics and Business, Elsevier, vol. 37(1), pages 35-47, February.
    7. Rothblum, Uriel G., 1975. "Multivariate constant risk posture," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 10(3), pages 309-332, June.
    8. Stephen P. Bradley & Sherwood C. Frey, Jr., 1975. "Bounds for Preference Function Assessment," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 21(11), pages 1308-1319, July.
    9. Charles M. Harvey, 1981. "Conditions on Risk Attitude for a Single Attribute," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 27(2), pages 190-203, February.
    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. Craig W. Kirkwood, 2004. "Approximating Risk Aversion in Decision Analysis Applications," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 1(1), pages 51-67, March.

    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. 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.
    2. Lim, Terence & Lo, Andrew W. & Merton, Robert C. & Scholes, Myron S., 2006. "The Derivatives Sourcebook," Foundations and Trends(R) in Finance, now publishers, vol. 1(5–6), pages 365-572, April.
    3. Mila Bravo & Dylan Jones & David Pla-Santamaria & Francisco Salas-Molina, 2022. "Encompassing statistically unquantifiable randomness in goal programming: an application to portfolio selection," Operational Research, Springer, vol. 22(5), pages 5685-5706, November.
    4. Júnior, Antonio Marcos Duarte, 1997. "A Framework for the Active Management of a Global Currency Fund," Brazilian Review of Econometrics, Sociedade Brasileira de Econometria - SBE, vol. 17(2), November.
    5. Palmeira, Mauricio, 2020. "Advice in the presence of external cues: The impact of conflicting judgments on perceptions of expertise," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 156(C), pages 82-96.
    6. Yang (Greg) Hou & Mark Holmes, 2020. "Do higher order moments of return distribution provide better decisions in minimum-variance hedging? Evidence from US stock index futures," Australian Journal of Management, Australian School of Business, vol. 45(2), pages 240-265, May.
    7. Rosenbloom, E. S., 1997. "A probabilistic interpretation of the final rankings in AHP," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 96(2), pages 371-378, January.
    8. Liu Shi & Jianying Qiu & Jiangyan Li & Frank Bohn, 2024. "Consciously stochastic in preference reversals," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 68(3), pages 255-297, June.
    9. Elie Ofek & Muhamet Yildiz & Ernan Haruvy, 2007. "The Impact of Prior Decisions on Subsequent Valuations in a Costly Contemplation Model," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 53(8), pages 1217-1233, August.
    10. Amédée-Manesme, Charles-Olivier & Barthélémy, Fabrice & Prigent, Jean-Luc, 2016. "Real estate investment: Market volatility and optimal holding period under risk aversion," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 543-555.
    11. Holzmeister, Felix & Stefan, Matthias, 2019. "The Risk Elicitation Puzzle Revisited: Across-Methods (In)consistency?," OSF Preprints pj9u2, Center for Open Science.
    12. John Board & Charles Sutcliffe & William T. Ziemba, 2003. "Applying Operations Research Techniques to Financial Markets," Interfaces, INFORMS, vol. 33(2), pages 12-24, April.
    13. Sodhi, ManMohan S. & Tang, Christopher S., 2009. "Modeling supply-chain planning under demand uncertainty using stochastic programming: A survey motivated by asset-liability management," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 121(2), pages 728-738, October.
    14. Amy V. Puelz, 2002. "A Stochastic Convergence Model for Portfolio Selection," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 50(3), pages 462-476, June.
    15. David Johnstone, 2002. "Behavioral and Prescriptive Explanations of a Reverse Sunk Cost Effect," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 53(3), pages 209-242, November.
    16. Farid Mkouar & Jean-Luc Prigent, 2014. "Long-Term Investment with Stochastic Interest and Inflation Rates Incompleteness and Compensating Variation," Working Papers 2014-301, Department of Research, Ipag Business School.
    17. C. Adcock, 2010. "Asset pricing and portfolio selection based on the multivariate extended skew-Student-t distribution," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 176(1), pages 221-234, April.
    18. Wei Liu & James W. Kolari, 2022. "Multifactor Market Indexes," JRFM, MDPI, vol. 15(4), pages 1-26, March.
    19. Ballestero, Enrique, 2001. "Stochastic goal programming: A mean-variance approach," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 131(3), pages 476-481, June.
    20. Pérez-Gladish, B. & Gonzalez, I. & Bilbao-Terol, A. & Arenas-Parra, M., 2010. "Planning a TV advertising campaign: A crisp multiobjective programming model from fuzzy basic data," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 38(1-2), pages 84-94, February.

    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:wly:navres:v:35:y:1988:i:6:p:597-613. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1002/(ISSN)1520-6750 .

    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.