Some Empirical Tests of the Predictive Strength of Three Multi-attribute Preference Models

  • K. J. Veldhuisen


The research, for which the empirical tests have been carried out, is directed at the design of residential situations for which the utility of the user(s) is optimal. The ultimate objective is to produce residential situations by CAD, optimising the user’s utilities measured through interactive Computer Assisted Data Collection. As residential situations usually are judged on a considerable number of properties, we have to establish the utilities that people (may) derive from those properties and the way they integrate these utilities into judgements of residential situations as a whole.


Magnitude Estimation Attribute Level Functional Measurement Multiplicative Model Combination Rule 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. ANDERSON, N. H., ‘Integration Theory and Attitude Change’, Psychological Review, 78 (1971) 171–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. —— ‘Information Integration Theory: A Brief Survey’, in Contemporary Developments in Mathematical Psychology, ed. D. H. KRANTZ et al. (San Francisco: Academic Press, 1974) 236–301.Google Scholar
  3. CROMBAG, H. F. M., ‘Recht als wetenschap’, Hollands Maandblad, 21, (1979) 29–39.Google Scholar
  4. GOLDBERG, L. R., ‘Simple Models of Simple Processes? Some Research on Clinical Judgements’, American Psychologists, 23 (1968) 483–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. GREEN, P. E., CARMONE, F. J. and WIND, Y., ‘Subjective Evaluation Models and Conjoint Measurement’, Behavioral Science, 17 (1972) 288–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. —— and RAO, V. R., ‘Conjoint Measurement for Quantifying Judgmental Data’, Journal of Marketing Research, 8 (1971) 355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. HAMBLIN, R. L., ‘Social Attitudes: Magnitude Measurement and Theory’, in BLALOCK, H. (ed.) Measurement in the Social Sciences (London: Macmillan, 1973).Google Scholar
  8. HIMMELFARB, S. and ANDERSON, N. H., ‘Integration Theory Applied to Opinion Attribution’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31 (1974) 1064–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. KNIGHT, R. L. and MENCHICK, M. D., ‘Conjoint Preference Estimation for Residential Land Use Policy Evaluation’, in GOLLEDGE, R. G. and RUSHTON, G. (eds) Spatial Choice and Spatial Behavior (Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 1976).Google Scholar
  10. KRANTZ, D.H., ‘Conjoint Measurement: the Luce-Tukey Axiomatization and Some Extensions’, Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 1 (1964) 248–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. LATHROP, R. G. and PETERS, B. E., ‘Subjective Cue Weighting and Decisions in Familiar Task’, Proceedings of the 77th Annual Convention, APA (1969).Google Scholar
  12. LEON M., ODEN, G. C. and ANDERSON, N. H., ‘Functional Measurement of Social Values’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, (1973) 301–10.Google Scholar
  13. LIEBER, S. R., ‘A Comparison of Metric and Nonmetric Scaling Models in Preference Research’, in GOLLEDGE, R. G. and RUSHTON, G. (eds) Spatial Choice and Spatial Behavior (Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 1976).Google Scholar
  14. LOUVIERE, J. J., ‘Information Processing Theory and Functional Measurement in Spatial Behavior’, in GOLLEDGE, R. G. and RUSHTON, G. (eds) Spatial Choice and Spatial Behavior (Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 1976).Google Scholar
  15. —— ‘Psychological Measurement of Travel Attributes’, in HENSHER, D. A. and DALVI, U. (eds) Determinants of Travel Choice (London: Saxon House, 1978).Google Scholar
  16. —— ‘On the Identification of the Functional Form of the Utility Expression and Its Relationship to Discrete Choice’, in HENSHER, D. A. and JOHNSON, L. W. (eds) Applied Discrete Choice Modelling (London: Croom Helm, 1981) 385–415.Google Scholar
  17. LUCE, R. D. and TUKEY, J. W., ‘Simultaneous Conjoint Measurement: A New Type of Fundamental Measurement’, Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 1 (1964) 1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. MEEHL, P. E., Clinical vs. Statistical Prediction: A Theoretical Analysis and Review of the Evidence (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1954).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. NORMAN, K. L., ‘A Solution for Weights and Scale Values in Functional Measurement,’ Psychological Review, 83 (1976) 80–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. RAINWATER, L., What Money Buys, Inequality and the Social Meanings of Income (New York: Basic Books Inc., 1974).Google Scholar
  21. ROSKAM, E. E., Unidimensional Conjoint Measurement (UNICON) for Multi-faceted Designs (Nijmegen: Psychologisch Laboratorium, 1974).Google Scholar
  22. SARIS, W. E., BRUINSMA, C., SCHOOTS, W. and VERMEULEN, C., ‘The Use of Magnitude Estimation in Large-Scale Survey Research’, Mens en Maatschappij, 52 (1977) 369–95.Google Scholar
  23. sSHANTEAU, J., ‘An Information-Integration Analysis of Risky Decision Making’, in KAPLAN, M. F. and SCHWARTZ, S. (eds) Human Judgement and Decision Processes (New York: Lacademic Press, 1975).Google Scholar
  24. SHINN, A. M., ‘Relations between scales’, in BLALOCK, H. (ed.) Measurement in the Social Sciences (London: Macmillan, 1973).Google Scholar
  25. SLOVIC, P. and LICHTENSTEIN, S., ‘A Comparison of Bayesian and Regression Approaches to the Information Processing in Judgement’, Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 6 (1971) 649–744.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. STEVENS, S., ‘On the Psychophysical Law’, Psychological Review, 64 (1957) 153–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. —— ‘Ratio Scales of Opinion’, in WHITLA, D. K. (ed.) Handbook of Measurement and Assessment in Behavioral Sciences (Mass.: Addison-Wesley Reading, 1966).Google Scholar
  28. —— and GALANTER, E. H., ‘Ratio Scales and Category Scales for a Dozen Perceptial Continua’, Journal of Experimental Psychology 54 (1957) 377–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. TIMMERMANS, H. J. P., ‘Unidimensional conjoint measurement and consumer decision-making’, Area, 12 (1980) 291–300.Google Scholar
  30. —— ‘Decompositional Multi-attribute Preference Models in Spatial Choice Analysis: A Review of Some Recent Developments’, Progress in Human Geography, 8 (1984) 189–221.Google Scholar
  31. VELDHUISEN, K. J. and HACFOORT, E. J. H., Bewonerswaarderingen, verhuisgeneigdheid en woonvoorkeuren: Een onderzoek in de provincie Zuid-Holland (P. P. D. Zuid-Holland, 1983).Google Scholar
  32. —— and KAPOEN, L. L., Een regionaal locatiemodel, Stichting PVP (Eindhoven: 1979).Google Scholar
  33. —— THIJSSEN, A. P. and TIMMERMANS, H. J. P., Bewonersvoorkeuren en Drager-inbouw Systemen Dept of Architecture, Building and Planning, University of Technology (Eindhoven: 1984a).Google Scholar
  34. —— THIJSSEN, A. P. and TIMMERMANS, H. J. P., ‘Conjoint Measurement Applied to the Judgement and Design of Dwellings’, Open House, 9 (1984b) 27–33.Google Scholar
  35. —— and TIMMERMANS, H. J. P., ‘Voorkeuren en waarderingen 1: Een drietal meetsystemen’, Mens en Maatschappij, 56 (1981a) 154–72.Google Scholar
  36. —— and —— ‘Voorkeuren en waarderingen 2: De vergelijking van een drietal meetsystemen’, Mens en Maatschappij, 56 (1981b) 275–93.Google Scholar
  37. —— and —— ‘Specification of Residential Utility Functions’, Environment and Planning, A, 16 (1984) 1573–583.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. WESTWOOD, D., LUNN, T. and BEAZLY, D., ‘The Trade-off Model and Its Extensions’, Journal of Market Research Society, 16 (1974) 227–41.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Willem E. Saris and Irmtraud N. Gallhofer 1988

Authors and Affiliations

  • K. J. Veldhuisen

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations