Une Introduction à La Modélisation Des PréférencesFootnote¹

1 Cet article est une version révisée et augmentée de Bouyssou et Vincke (1998). Nous tenons à remercier les arbitres anonymes de cette revue pour leurs commentaires constructifs. Nous restons toutefois seuls responsables des erreurs ou omissions qui pourraient subsister.

References

• Allais, M. (1953), Le comportement de l’homme rationnel devant le risque : Critique des postulats et axiomes de l’école américaine, Econometrica 21, 503–46.
   Google Scholar
• Arrow, K.J. (1963), Social choice and individual values, deuxième édition, Wiley, New York.
   Google Scholar
• Bana e Costa, C.A. et Vansnick. J.-C. (1994), Macbeth – An interactive path towards the construction of cardinal value functions, International Transactions in Operational Research 1(4), 489–500.
   Google Scholar
• Bergstrom. T.X. (1975), Maximal elements of acyclic relations on compact sets. Journal of Economic Theory 10, 403–404.
   Google Scholar
• Bouyssou, D. (1986), Some remarks on the notion of compensation in MCDM, European Journal of Operational Research 26, 150–160.
   Google Scholar
• Bouyssou, D. et Pirlot, M. (1999), Conjoint measurement without additivity and transitivity, in N. Meskens et M. Roubens (éds), Advances in Decision Analysis, Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp. 13–29.
   Google Scholar
• Bouyssou, D, et Pirlot, M, (2003), Non transitive decomposable conjoint measurement. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, vol. 4, 677–703.
   Google Scholar
• Bouyssou, D. et Vincke, P. (1998), Introduction to topics on preference modelling. Annuls of Operations Research 80, i-xiv.
   Google Scholar
• Broome, J. (1991), Weighting goods, Basil Blackwell, London.
   Google Scholar
• Coombs, C.H. (1964), A theory of data, Wiley, New York.
   Google Scholar
• Cowan, T.A. et Fishburn, P.C. (1988), Foundations of preference, in G. Eberlein et H. Berghel (éds). Essays in Honor of Werner Leinfellner, D. Reidel, Dordrecht, pp. 261–271.
   Google Scholar
• Doignon, J.-P. (1987), Threshold representation of multiple semiorders, SIAM Journal on Algebraic and Discrete Methods 8, 77–84.
   Google Scholar
• Doignon, J.-P., Monjardet, B., Roubens, M. et Vincke, Ph. (1986), Biorder families, valued relations and preference modelling, Journal of Mathematical Psychology 30(4), 435–480.
   Google Scholar
• Ellsberg, D. (1961), Risk, ambiguity and the Savage axioms. Quarterly Journal of Economics 75, 643–669.
   Google Scholar
• Falmagne, J.-C. et Doignon, J.-P. (1997), Stochastic evolution of rationality. Theory and Decision 43, 107–138.
   Google Scholar
• Fishburn, P.C. (1970), Utility theory for decision-making, Wiley, New-York.
   Google Scholar
• Fishburn. P.C. (1982), Nontransitive measurable utility. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 26, 31–67.
   Google Scholar
• Fishburn, P.C. (1985), Interval orders and intervals graphs, Wiley, New-York.
   Google Scholar
• Fishburn, P.C. (1988). Nonlinear preference and utility theory, Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.
   Google Scholar
• Fishburn, P.C. (1991a). Nontransitive additive conjoint measurement. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 35, l–40.
   Google Scholar
• Fishburn, P.C, (1991b), Nontransitive preferences in decision theory. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 4, 113–134.
   Google Scholar
• Fishburn, P.C. (1992), Additive differences and simple preference comparisons. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 36, 21–31.
   Google Scholar
• Fodor, J. et Roubens, M. (1994), Fuzzy preference modelling and multiple criteria decision support, Kluwer, Dordrecht.
   Google Scholar
• Gilboa, I. (1987), Expected utility with purely subjective non-additive probabilities, Journal of Mathematical Economics 16, 65–68.
   Google Scholar
• Gilboa, I. et Schmeidler, D. (1989), Maxmin expected utility with a non-unique prior, Journal of Mathematical Economics 18, 141–153.
   Google Scholar
• Green, RE., Tuli, D.S. et Albaum. G. (1988), Research for marketing decisions, Englewood Cliffs.
   Google Scholar
• Kahneman, D. et Tversky, A. (1979), Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk, Econometrica 47, 263–291.
   Google Scholar
• Keeney, R.L. et Raiffa, H. (1976), Decisions with multiple objectives: Preferences and value tradeoffs, Wiley, New-York.
   Google Scholar
• Krantz, D.H., Luce, R.D., Suppes, P. et Tversky, A. (1971), Foundations of measurement, vol. 1 : Additive and polynomial representations. Academic Press, New-York.
   Google Scholar
• Kreps, D.M. (1979), A representation theorem for “preference for flexibility”. Econometrica 47, 565–577.
   Google Scholar
• Laslier. J.-F. (1997), Tournament solutions and majority voting, Springer-Verlag, Berlin.
   Google Scholar
• Luce, R.D. (1956), Semiorders and a theory of utility discrimination. Econometrica 24. 178–191.
   Google Scholar
• Luce, R.D. (1959), Individual choice behavior: A theoretical analysis, Wiley, New-York.
   Google Scholar
• Machina, M.J. (1982), Expected utility without the independence axiom. Econometrica 50, 277–323.
   Google Scholar
• Machina, M.J. (1989), Dynamic consistency and non-expected utility models of choice under uncertainty, Journal of Economic Literature 27, 1622–1688.
   Google Scholar
• Malishevski, A. (1993), Criteria for judging the rationality of decisions in the presence of vague alternatives, Mathematical Social Sciences 26, 205–247.
   Google Scholar
• May, K.O. (1954), Intransitivity, utility and the aggregation of preference patterns. Econometrica 22, 1–13.
   Google Scholar
• McClennen, E.L. ( 1990), Rationality and dynamic choice: Foundational explorations, Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• McCrimmon, K.R. et Larsson, S. (1979), Utility theory: Axioms versus paradoxes, in M. Allais et O. Hagen (éds), Expected utility hypotheses and the Allais paradox, D. Reidel, Dordrecht, pp. 27–145,
   Google Scholar
• Moulin, H. (1986), Choosing from a tournament, Social Choice and Welfare 3, 271–291.
   Google Scholar
• Perny, P. et Roy, B. (1992), The use of fuzzy outranking relations in preference modelling. Fuzzy Sets and Systems 49. 33–53.
   Google Scholar
• Pirlot, M. et Vincke, Ph. (1997), Semiorders, Properties, representations, applications, Kluwer, Dordrecht.
   Google Scholar
• Quiggin. J. (1982), A theory of anticipated utility. Journal of Economic Behaviour and Organization 3, 323–343.
   Google Scholar
• Quiggin, J. (1993), Generalized expected utility theory – The rank-dependent model, Kluwer, Dordrecht.
   Google Scholar
• Raiffa, H. (1970), Decision analysis – Introductory lectures on choices under uncertainty, Addison-Wesley, Reading.
   Google Scholar
• Roberts, F.S. (1979), Measurement theory with applications to decision making, utility and the social sciences, Addison-Wesley. Reading.
   Google Scholar
• Roubens, M. et Vincke, Ph. (1985), Preference modelling, Springer Verlag, Berlin.
   Google Scholar
• Roy, B. (1985), Méthodologie multicritère d’aide à la décision, Economica, Paris. Traduction anglaise : Multicriteria methodology for decision aiding, Kluwer, Dordrecht, 1996.
   Google Scholar
• Roy, B. (1991), The outranking approach and the foundations of ELECTRE methods, Theory and Decision 31, 49–73.
   Google Scholar
• Schmeidler, D. (1989), Subjective probability and expected utility without additivity. Econometrica 57. 571–587.
   Google Scholar
• Schwartz. T. (1986), The logic of collectice choice, Columbia University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Sen, A. (1970), Collective choice and social welfare. Holden Day, San Francisco.
   Google Scholar
• Sen, A. (1977), Social choice theory: A re-examination, Econometrica 45, 53–89.
   Google Scholar
• Sen, A. (1993), Internal consistency of choice. Econometrica 61, 495–521.
   Google Scholar
• Sen, A.K. (1986), Social choice theory, in K.J. Arrow et M.D. Intriligator (éds). Handbook of mathematical economics. Vol. 3, North-Holland, Amsterdam, pp. 1073–1181.
   Google Scholar
• Sugden, R. (1985), Why be consistent? A critical analysis of consistency requirements in choice theory, Economica 52, 167–183.
   Google Scholar
• Tsoukiàs, A. et Vincke, Ph. (1992), A survey on nonconventional preference modelling, Ricerca Operativa 61, 5–49.
   Google Scholar
• Tsoukiàs, A. et Vincke, Ph. (1995), A new axiomatic foundation of partial comparability. Theory and Decision 39, 79–114.
   Google Scholar
• Tsoukiàs, A. et Vincke, Ph. (1997), Extended preference structures in MCDA, in J. Climaco (éd.), Multicriteria Analysis, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp. 37–50.
   Google Scholar
• Tversky, A. (1969), Intransitivity of preferences. Psychological Review 76, 31–48.
   Google Scholar
• Vincke, Ph. (1989), L’aide multicritère à la décision, éditions de l’Université de Bruxelles – édilions Ellipses, Bruxelles – Paris. Traduction anglaise : Multicriteria Decision Aid, Wiley, 1992.
   Google Scholar
• Vind. K. (1991), Independent preferences. Journal of Mathematical Economies 20, 119–135.
   Google Scholar
• von Winterfeldt, D. et Edwards, W. (1986), Decision analysis and behavioral research, Cambridge University Press. Cambridge.
   Google Scholar
• von Wright, G.H. (1963), The logic of preference. Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh.
   Google Scholar
• Wakker, P.P. (1989), Additive representations of preferences: A new foundation of decision analysis. Kluwer, Dordrecht.
   Google Scholar
• Yaari, M.E. (1987), The dual theory of choice under risk, Econometrica 55, 95–115.
   Google Scholar