In many decision problems, the consequences of an action may impact several individuals, and the decision may be based on the preferences of those who are affected. The rule for aggregating these individual preferences is called a group preference aggregation rule. In this paper we present a theory for group preference aggregation rules based on the concept of strength of preference. This concept is operationalized by asking an individual to order differences in his strength of preference between pairs of alternatives. A preference representation function that reproduces this ordering is called a measurable value function. In general we cannot expect a measurable value function and a utility function obtained from lottery questions to bear any particular relation to each other. A group preference aggregation rule based on the measurable value functions of individuals can be used under conditions of certainty without introducing lotteries into the preference assessment procedure. In addition, it facilitates the difficult problem of making interpersonal utility comparisons. We also establish several relationships between the group preference aggregation rules based on measurable value functions and previous work based on risky utility functions. These relationships allow either one of these preference aggregation rules to be transformed into the other after obtaining only a minimal amount of information from a group member. These relationships also raise several fundamental questions about the effects of the introduction of risk on the preferences of an individual and on the preferences of a group. We offer some preliminary comments and results regarding these issues.
[1]
John C. Harsanyi,et al.
Nonlinear social welfare functions
,
1975
.
[2]
J. Harsanyi.
Cardinal Welfare, Individualistic Ethics, and Interpersonal Comparisons of Utility
,
1955
.
[3]
Rakesh K. Sarin,et al.
Cardinal Preference Aggregation Rules for the Case of Certainty
,
1978
.
[4]
M. Fleming,et al.
A Cardinal Concept of Welfare
,
1952
.
[5]
John C. Harsanyi,et al.
Bayesian Decision Theory, Rule Utilitarianism, And Arrow’s Impossibility Theorem
,
1979
.
[6]
G. Debreu.
Topological Methods in Cardinal Utility Theory
,
1959
.
[7]
A. Sen,et al.
Collective Choice and Social Welfare
,
2017
.
[8]
R. F. Miles,et al.
Trajectory selection for the Mariner Jupiter/Saturn 1977 project
,
1974
.
[9]
Patrick Suppes,et al.
Foundational aspects of theories of measurement
,
1958,
Journal of Symbolic Logic.
[10]
Ralph L. Keeney,et al.
Group Decision Making Using Cardinal Social Welfare Functions
,
1975
.
[11]
Rakesh K. Sarin,et al.
Measurable Multiattribute Value Functions
,
1979,
Oper. Res..
[12]
H. Raiffa,et al.
GAMES AND DECISIONS; INTRODUCTION AND CRITICAL SURVEY.
,
1958
.
[13]
J. Pratt.
RISK AVERSION IN THE SMALL AND IN THE LARGE11This research was supported by the National Science Foundation (grant NSF-G24035). Reproduction in whole or in part is permitted for any purpose of the United States Government.
,
1964
.
[14]
J. Neumann,et al.
Theory of games and economic behavior
,
1945,
100 Years of Math Milestones.
[15]
D. Ellsberg.
Classic and Current Notions of “Measurable Utility”
,
1954
.