<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>

<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="/static/oaitohtml.xsl"?>

<!--
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="/oaitohtml.xsl"?>
-->

<OAI-PMH xmlns="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/ http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/OAI-PMH.xsd" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance">
    <responseDate>2026-10-11T21:10:51Z</responseDate>
    <request verb="GetRecord" metadataPrefix="oai_dc" identifier="10.57760/sciencedb.29411" >https://www.scidb.cn/oai</request>
<GetRecord>
    <record>
    <header >
    <identifier>10.57760/sciencedb.29411</identifier>
    <datestamp>2025-10-10T17:24:58Z</datestamp>
</header>
    <metadata>
        
<oai_dc:dc xmlns:oai_dc="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/ http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc.xsd">
  <dc:date>2025-10-10</dc:date>
  <dc:title>Validation of the Effectiveness of the Range-Fixed Trade-off Method (RFTM)</dc:title>
  <dc:identifier>doi:10.57760/sciencedb.29411</dc:identifier>
  <dc:language>en</dc:language>
  <dc:description>This study aims to test the effectiveness of the Range-Fixed Trade-off Method (RFTM) by comparing the utility functions elicited by it and by the conventional trade-off method. To this end, a within-subjects design was adopted with two sub-experiments: Sub-experiment A used the Range-Fixed Trade-off Method, and Sub-experiment B used the conventional trade-off method. All subjects completed both sub-experiments and produced a standard outcome sequence and a standard probability sequence.In Sub-experiment A, subjects were first asked to choose between the initial prospect R=(6000CNY,0.1;200CNY,0.5;0CNY,0.4) and the prospect S^'=(5000CNY,0.1;x,0.5;0CNY,0.4) constructed using the bisection method based on the initial prospect, where x=(0+m)\/2. If R was chosen, implying x_1&amp;isin;(x,5000), update x=(x+5000)\/2 and repeat the operation; else, x=(0+x)\/2 and repeat the operation. After 5 iterations, the program then recorded the midpoint of the final interval where x_1 lies as x_1. Update R by replacing x_0 (i.e. 200CNY) with x_1, and continue similarly to elicit x_2 through x_6. Next, elicit q_i (i=1,⋯,5) for indifference between R=(x_6,q_i;x_(0,) 1-q_i ) and S=(x_i,1), using 6 bisection iterations per q_i.In Sub-experiment B, subjects were first asked to choose between the initial prospect S=(200CNY,2/3;100CNY,1/3) and the prospect R^'=(x,,2/3;0CNY,1/3) constructed using the bisection method based on the initial prospect, where x=(200+5000)\/2. If the subject chose prospect S, implying x_1&amp;isin;(x,200+5000), update x=(x+200+5000)\/2 and repeat the operation; else, x=(200+x)\/2 and repeat the operation. After 5 iterations, the program then recorded the midpoint of the final interval where x_1 lies as x_1. Update S by replacing x_0 (i.e. 200CNY) with x_1, and proceed to elicit x_2 through x_6. Then, elicit q_i (i=1,⋯,5) for indifference between R=(x_6,q_i;x_(0,) 1-q_i ) and S=(x_i,1), with 6 bisection iterations each.As such, eliciting each x_i (i=1,⋯,6) required 5 choices per subject, while each q_i (i=1,⋯,5)&amp;nbsp;required 6 choices. To assess data reliability, after eliciting both standard outcome sequence and standard probability sequence, subjects re-answered the fourth question for each element in both sequences.&amp;nbsp;</dc:description>
  <dc:subject>risk decision-making; trade-off method; preference elicitation; choice-set outcome range; rank-dependent utility theory (RDU)</dc:subject>
  <dc:creator>liu rong yuan</dc:creator>
  <dc:creator>Li Chunhao</dc:creator>
  <dc:creator>Liu Yuanhao</dc:creator>
  <dc:rights>PUBLIC</dc:rights>
  <dc:rights>https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/</dc:rights>
  <dc:type>dataset</dc:type>
  <dc:publisher>Science Data Bank</dc:publisher>
</oai_dc:dc>

    </metadata>
</record>
</GetRecord>
</OAI-PMH>