[Sample B: Approval/Signature Sheet] - George Mason University

Still using the attribute A3.3 Range as an example, it was clear that the DM‘s
preferences increase in x, meaning that more range is better, thus the following points in
the utility function could be derived:
u (x0) = u (300) = 0
u (x.25) = u(900) = 0.25
u (x.5) = u(1800) = 0.5
u (x.75) = u(2700) = 0.75
u (x1) = u(4000) = 1
A consistency check was performed by assessing the CE for (x.25, x.75). The result
should be equal to u (x.5) = u (1800) = 0.5. In this example the DM was indifferent
between the lottery and x.5, thus consistent with his preferences.
The assessment procedure yielded a risk averse utility function, meaning that the
CEs are less than the expected consequences of their respective lotteries, which means
that the DM always prefers the expected consequences to run the risks involved with a
lottery.
Since the overall assessment involved the definition of five points, and no serious
inconsistencies were identified in the DM‘s preferences, a three points curve was used to
define the utility function -- the least preferred level of the sub-range, the most preferred
level of the sub-range and the mid-preference level of the sub range (see fig. 28).
63