Suchergebnisse

The December issue of Decision Analysis contains six articles. Our first three papers aim to improve the quality of probability judgments. Hora, Fransen, Hawkins, and Susel argue that medium aggregation of distribution functions works better than mean aggregation of probabilities. Merkle and Steyvers examine the relative attractiveness of different scorings rules. Karvetski, Olson, Mandel, and Twardy propose a coherence weighted probability aggregation rule for combining expert forecasts. Our fourth paper by Katsikopoulos presents a theory that explains why simple heuristics often perform well in multiattribute choices with binary attributes. Bhattacharjya, Eidsvik, and Mukerji provide closed-form results for value of information in the context of portfolio selection with dependent projects. Finally, Gao, Zhong, and Mei use game theory to analyze information security. All of the papers have a common purpose of improving decisions in private and public domains.

A brief summary of the five papers published in this issue is provided. These papers deal with diverse topics that include: optimal betting behavior in the presence of ambiguity; public policy on screening for breast cancer; product line design; and value of information.

ABSTRACTIn this paper the results of an extensive simulation study are reported to provide empirical evidence on the Evaluation and Bound approach. Some rules for implementing the procedure interactively on a computer are also examined and compared experimentally. The results suggest that the Evaluation and Bound procedure, in conjunction with an appropriate strategy of implementing it, would reduce considerably the information requirement of the decision maker in the choice of a preferred multiattribute alternative.

We examine conditions under which decisions made in isolation provide an optimal strategy for the multiperiod problem. We focus on investment decisions with constant returns to scale. We first consider the framework of subjective expected utility. Under minimal assumptions (i.e., without assuming utility is concave), we prove that only log utility is myopically optimal when returns are serially correlated. When returns are serially independent, we generalize Mossin's result [Mossin J (1968) Optimal multiperiod portfolio policies. J. Bus. 41(2):215–229.] that only log and power, including linear and convex, possess the myopic property. Finally, we extend the inquiry when probabilities are uncertain and the decision maker uses the recursive smooth model of ambiguity to identify an optimal strategy. We show that with serial correlation, preferences including ambiguity concerns cannot be myopic and optimal. Without correlation, we identify the exact pairs of utility and ambiguity functions that permit myopic decision rules.

Satisfaction in experiencing the future depends on decisions made today. We consider six well-known psychological laws governing satisfaction. The laws capture habit formation and satiation. We show it is possible to formalize these laws by means of a utility model and to derive implications from the laws: wanting versus liking, crescendo, recharge periods, variety seeking, and craving. The discussion combines mathematical propositions, experimental findings in psychology, and time-honored wisdom. We discuss how the sixth law—projection bias—may lead to incorrect predictions of experienced utility and suboptimal life-balance choices.

This "From the Editors" column is co-authored by Editor-in-Chief Rakesh K. Sarin and former Editor-in-Chief L. Robin Keller. Our first article, by Ralph L. Keeney, presents "Foundations for Group Decision Analysis." The second article is "Toward an Improved Methodology to Construct and Reconcile Decision Analytic Preference Judgments" by Richard M. Anderson and Robert Clemen. Next, Manel Baucells and Rakesh K. Sarin discuss "Determinants of Experienced Utility: Laws and Implications." The fourth paper, "Estimating Second Order Probability Beliefs from Subjective Survival Data," is by Péter Hudomiet and Robert J. Willis. The final paper, by Kun Zan and J. Eric Bickel, is on "Components of Portfolio Value of Information."

This "From the Editors" column is coauthored by new Editor-in-Chief Rakesh K. Sarin and former Editor-in-Chief L. Robin Keller. Our first two articles are on techniques for approximating probability distributions. The first article, by Robert K. Hammond and J. Eric Bickel is on "Reexamining Discrete Approximations to Continuous Distributions." Next, Luis V. Montiel and J. Eric Bickel present a method for "Approximating Joint Probability Distributions Given Partial Information." The next two articles present methods for analyzing terrorist threats or measures for terrorist protection. Kevin Ni, Daniel Faissol, Thomas Edmunds, and Richard Wheeler present a new method for "Exploitation of Ambiguous Cues to Infer Terrorist Activity." The next article is on "Passenger Profiling and Screening for Aviation Security in the Presence of Strategic Attackers" by Huseyin Cavusoglu, Young Kwark, Bin Mai, and Srinivasan Raghunathan. Our final paper is on "WholeSoldier Performance Appraisal to Support Mentoring and Personnel Decisions," by Robert A. Dees, Scott T. Nestler, and Robert Kewley.

We investigate fair processes for societal decisions that involve different risks and benefits to different groups. A fair decision‐making process is particularly important for decisions such as siting hazardous facilities. We experimentally evaluate the impact of alternative decision processes on the final choice of hypothetical facility sites and the resulting benefit and risk distribution to groups. The experimental task required choice among many alternative sites for a hazardous facility. Sites differ by the distribution of risks and benefits to each of two communities, and in the attractiveness of the sites to each community. Subjects were divided into three groups: individuals who judged the best site in the role of arbitrators, pairs of negotiators with one person representing each of the two communities, and trios who identified the best site in the role of a siting jury. We found the choices of negotiating and siting jury groups tended to emphasize the communities'preferences compared to the individual arbitrators who tended to focus on balancing the distribution of risks and benefits. Also, undergraduate psychology students, regardless of the dispute resolution mechanism, tended to display more emphasis on the risks and benefits, and graduate business students tended to focus more on the communities'preferences.

In societal risk analysis the equity of the distribution of risks is often an important consideration owing to the special nature of health risks. We empirically validate some assumptions about equity that have been discussed in the decision analytic literature. Our results show that the way fatalities are distributed throughout a society is considered along with the number of fatalities in evaluating alternative policies involving mortality risks. The concepts of ex ante equity and ex post equity are both shown to be important in judgments of fairness. We next present a decision model based on multiattribute preference theory incorporating the number of fatalities, as well as ex ante equity and ex post equity. When ex ante equity and ex post equity are positively weighted in this fair‐risk model, options with more equal risk distributions are ranked higher. Next we empirically show that the distribution of benefits has an impact on judgments of fairness. The fair‐risk model does not include information on the benefits distribution, so it would apply when benefits are distributed equally or when the decision maker wishes to not include benefits in the model. We briefly discuss how the notion of proportional equity can incorporate benefits into judgments of the fairness of risk distributions. We then include benefits in a more general model in which fair risk‐benefit combinations are those that are exchange equitable. A key implication of this envy‐free risk–benefit model is that an unequal distribution of risks may be preferred if it is accompanied by a compensatory differential in benefits consistent with peoples' preference tradeoffs between received benefits and assumed risks. Finally, we discuss how perceived deservedness may influence judgments about equity. We conclude with a discussion of the implications of research on alternative notions of equity for policy makers dealing with social risks.