David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Minds and Machines 16 (3):339-364 (2006)
Many quantitative scales are constructed using cutoffs on a continuum with scores assigned to the cutoffs. This paper develops a framework for using or constructing such scales from a decision-making standpoint. It addresses questions such as: How many distinct thresholds or cutoffs on a scale (i.e., what levels of granularity) are useful for a rational agent? Where should these thresholds be placed given a rational agent’s preferences and risk-orientation? Do scale score assignments have any bearing on decision-making and if so, how should scores be assigned? Given two possible states of nature , an ordered collection of alternatives from which one is to be selected depending on the probability that A is the case, a simple expected utility condition stipulates when adjacent alternatives are distinguishable and determines the threshold odds separating them. Threshold odds and utilities are mapped onto scale scores via a simple distance model. The placement of the thresholds reflects relative concern over decisional consequences given A versus consequences given ∼ A. Likewise, it is shown that scale scores reflect risk-aversion or risk-seeking not only with respect to A versus ∼ A but also with respect to the rank of the R j . Connections are drawn between this framework and rank-dependent expected utility (RDEU) theory. Implications are adumbrated for both machine and human decision-making.
|Keywords||Measurement Expected utility Scale construction Granularity Decision Uncertainty|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Michael Smithson (2011). How Many Alternatives? Partitions Pose Problems for Predictions and Diagnoses. Social Epistemology 23 (3):347-360.
Similar books and articles
Paul Weirich (1986). Expected Utility and Risk. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 37 (4):419-442.
Richard Watt, Francisco J. Vázquez & Ignacio Moreno (2001). An Experiment on Rational Insurance Decisions. Theory and Decision 51 (2/4):247-296.
Robert Landeros & Richard E. Plank (1996). How Ethical Are Purchasing Management Professionals? Journal of Business Ethics 15 (7):789 - 803.
Gian Luca Casali (2011). Developing a Multidimensional Scale for Ethical Decision Making. Journal of Business Ethics 104 (4):485-497.
R. Lange, M. A. Thalbourne, J. Houran & L. Storm (2000). The Revised Transliminality Scale: Reliability and Validity Data From a Rasch Top-Down Purification Procedure. Consciousness and Cognition 9 (4):591-617.
Moez Abouda & Alain Chateauneuf (2002). Positivity of Bid-Ask Spreads and Symmetrical Monotone Risk Aversion. Theory and Decision 52 (2):149-170.
Johanna Kujala & Tarja Pietiläinen (2004). Female Managers' Ethical Decision-Making: A Multidimensional Approach. [REVIEW] Journal of Business Ethics 53 (1-2):153-163.
Oliver M. Freestone & Peter J. McGoldrick (2008). Motivations of the Ethical Consumer. Journal of Business Ethics 79 (4):445 - 467.
Gerd Weinrich (1999). Nondegenerate Intervals of No-Trade Prices for Risk Averse Traders. Theory and Decision 46 (1):79-99.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads11 ( #201,792 of 1,699,704 )
Recent downloads (6 months)8 ( #77,273 of 1,699,704 )
How can I increase my downloads?