Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Behavioral Issues in Multiattribute Utility Modeling and Decision Analysis

  • Conference paper
Organizations: Multiple Agents with Multiple Criteria

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems ((LNE,volume 190))

Abstract

The case for the normativeness of decision analysis has primarily been made on logical rather than empirical grounds. In this paper we address several empirical issues relevant to decision analysis in general, and MAU modeling in particular. The first one concerns the need for empirical validations as to premises underlying normative decision theory. The second addresses the nature of multiattribute preference functions, particularly their mathematical complexity or lack thereof. The third issue concerns method bias and the need for a theory of judgmental errors. Finally, some possible meanings of relative importance judgments are examined, as these underlie several multiple criteria decision making methods. Although the various issues raised will not be fully resolved here, it is hoped that their identification and preliminary discussion will inspire subsequent research.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Abelson, R. P., Script processing in attitude formation and decision making. In Cognition and Social behavior, J. S. Carroll and J. W. Payne (eds.), Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1976, 33–45.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, N. E, and Shanteau, J., Weak inference with linear models. Psychological Bulletin, 84, no. 6, 1977, 1155–1170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beach, L. R., Multiple regression as a model for human information utilization. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 2, 1967, 274–289.

    Google Scholar 

  • Birnbaum, M. H., The devil rides again: Correlation as an index of fit. Psychological Bulletin, 4, 1973, 239–242.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bowman, E. H., Consistency and optimality in managerial decision making. Management Science, 9, 1963, 310–321.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, R. V., and Watson, S. R., Issues in the value of decision analysis. Technical Report for Office of Naval Research, McLean, Virginia: Decisions and Design, Inc., November 1975.

    Google Scholar 

  • Camerer, C., General Conditions for the success of bootstrapping models. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 1980 (in press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Darlington, R. B., Multiple regression in psychological research and practice. Psychological Bulletin, 69, 1968, 161–182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dawes, R. M., The mind, the model, and the task. In Cognitive Theory, Vol. 1, F. Restle, R. M. Shiffrin, N. J. Castellan, H. R. Lindman, and D. P. Pisoni (eds.), Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1975.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dawes, R. M. The robust beauty of improper linear models in decision making. American Psychologist, 34, 1979, 571–582.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dawes, R. M. and Corrigan, B., Linear models in decision making. Psychological Bulletin, 81, 1974, 95–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dorans, N. and Drasgow, F., Alternative weighting schemes for linear prediction. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 21, 1978, 316–345.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edwards, W. M., How to use multiattribute utility measurement for social decision making. Ieee Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, 7, May 1977, 326–340.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Einhorn, H. J., The use of nonlinear, noncompensatory models in decision making. Psychological Bulletin, 73, 1970, 221–230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Einhorn, H. J., Use of nonlinear, noncompensatory models as a function of task and amount of information. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 6, 1971, 1–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Einhorn, H.J. and Hogarth, R. M., Unit weighting schemes for decision making. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 13, 1975, 171–192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Einhorn, H. J., Kleinmuntz, D. N., and Kleinmuntz, B., Linear regression and process tracing models of judgment. Psychological Review, 86, 1979, 465–485.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Farquhar, P. H., Interdependent criteria in utility analysis. In Multiple Criteria Problem Solving, S. Zionts (ed.), Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 1978.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischer, G. W., Convergent validation of decomposed multiattribute utility assessment procedures for risky and riskless decisions. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 18, 1977, 295–315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fischhoff, B., Decision analysis: Clinical art or clinical science? In Human Decision Making, Vol. 1, L. Sjöberg, T. Tyszka, and J. A. Wise (eds.), Bodafors, Sweden: Doxa, 1980 (in press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Fishburn, P. C., Utility Theory for Decision Making. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1970.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fishburn, P. C., and Keeney, R. L., Seven independence concepts and continuous multiattribute utility functions. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 11, 1974, 294–327.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldberg, L. R., Simple models or simple processes? Some research on clinical judgments. American Psychologist, 23, 1968, 483–496.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldberg, L. R., Man versus model of man: A rationale, plus some evidence for a method of improving on clinical inferences. Psychological Bulletin, 73, 1970, 422–432.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldberg, L. R., Five models of clinical judgment: An empirical comparison between linear and nonlinear representations of the human inference process. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 6, 1971, 458–479.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grether, D. M., and Plott, C. R., Economic theory of choice and the preference reversal phenomenon. American Economic Review, 69, no. 4, September 1979, 623–638.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hershey, J. C., Kunreuther, H. C., and Schoemaker, P. J. H., Two-piece von Neumann-Morgenstern utility functions: Some methodological and empirical observations. Department of Decision Sciences, The Wharton School, Philadelphia, 1980.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hershey, J. C., and Schoemaker, P. J. H., Risk taking and problem context in the domain of losses: An expected utility analysis. The Journal of Risk and Insurance, 47, no. 1, March 1980, 111–132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hammond, K. R., and Adelman, L., Science, value and judgment. Science, 194, 1976, 389–396.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hammond, K. R., Hursch, C. J., and Todd, F. J., Analyzing the components of clinical inference. Psychological Review, 71, 1964, 438–456.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoffman, P. J., Slovic, P., and Rorer, L. G., An analysis-of-variance model for the assessment of configural cue utilization in clinical judgment. Psychological Bulletin, 69, 1968, 338–349.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hogarth, R. M., Cognitive processes and the assessment of subjective probability distributions. Journal.of the American Statistical Association, 70, 1975, 350.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keeney, R. L., Multiplicative utility functions. Operations Research, 19, 1974, 875–893.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keeney, R. L., and Raiffa, H., Decisions with Multiplicative Objectives. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1977.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kleinmuntz, B., Mmpi decision rules for the identification of college maladjustment: A digital computer approach. Psychological Monographs, 77, (14, Whole No. 577), 1963.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kunreuther, H., Extensions of Bowman’s theory on managerial decision-making. Management Science, 15, 1969, 415–439.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kunreuther, H., and Schoemaker, P. J. H., Decision analysis for complex systems: Integrating descriptive and prescriptive components. Knowledge: Creation, Diffusion, Utilization, 2, 3, 1981 (in press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Lichtenstein, S., and Slovic, P., Reversals of preference between bids and choices in gambling decisions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 98, 1971, 46–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindman, H. R., Inconsistent preferences among gambles. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 89, 1971, 390–397.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacCrimmon, K., Descriptive and normative implications of decisions theory postulates. In Risk and Uncertainty, Borch and Mossin (eds.), New York: Macmillan and Co., 1968, 3–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacCrimmon, K. R., and Larsson, S., Utility theory: Axioms versus “paradoxes”. In Rational Decisions under Uncertainty, M. Allais and O. Hagen (éds.), 1975 (in press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Meehl, P. E., Clinical Versus Statistical Prediction: A Theoretical Analysis and Review of the Literature. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1954.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Meehl, P. E., Seer over sign: The first good example. Journal of Experimental Research in Personality, 1, 1965, 27–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mosteller, P., Remarks on the method of paired comparisons: I. The least squares solution assuming equal standard deviations and equal correlations. Psychometrika, 16, no. 1, March 1951.

    Google Scholar 

  • Newman, J. R., Differential weighting in multiattribute utility measurement: when it should not and when it does make a difference. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 20, 1977, 312–325.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nystedt, L., and Magnusson, D., Integration of information in a clinical task: An empirical comparison of six models. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 40, 1976, 343–356.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paelinck, J. H. P., Qualitative multiple criteria analysis: An application to airport location, Environment and Planning, 9, 1977, 883–895.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Payne, J. W., Braunstein, M. L., and Carroll, J. S., Exploring pre-decisional behavior: An alternative approach to decision research. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 22, 1978, 17–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Postman, L., and Tolman, E.C., Brunswik’s probabilistic functionalism. In Psychology: A Study of a Science, Vol. 1, S. Koch (ed.), New York: McGraw-Hill, 1959.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pounds, W. P., The process of problem finding. Industrial Management Review, Fall, 1969, 1-19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Russo, J. E., and Rosen, L. D., An eye movement analysis of multi-alternative choice. Memory and Cognition, 3, 1975, 267–276.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saaty, T. L., A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 15, no. 3 June 1977, 234–281.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt, P. L., The relative efficiency of regression and simple unit predictor weights in applied differential psychology. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 31, 1971, 699–714.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmitt, N., and Levine, R. L., Statistical and subjective weights: Some problems and proposals. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 20, 1977, 15–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schoemaker, P. J. H., and Wald, C. C., An experimental comparison of various approaches to determining weights in additive utility models. Working Paper, Center for Decision Research, University of Chicago, 1980a.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schoemaker, P. J. H., and Waid, C. C., Additive utility models with random weights: Developing a lower benchmark. Working paper, Center for Decision Research, University of Chicago, 1980b.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon, H. A., Discussion: Cognition and social behavior. In Cognition and Social behavior, J. S. Carroll and J. W. Payne (eds.), Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1976.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slovic, P., and Lichtenstein, S., The relative Importance of probabilities and payoffs in risk taking. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 78, 1968.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slovic, P., and Lichtenstein, S.C., Comparison of Bayesian and regression approaches to the study of information processing in judgment. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 6, 1971, 649–744.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slovic, P., and Tversky, A., Who accepts Savage’s axiom? Behavioral Science, 19, 1974, 373–378.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slovica, P., Fischhoff, B., and Lichtenstein, S., Behavioral decision theory, Annual Review of Psychology, 28, 1977, 1–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Summers, D. A., Taliaferro, J.D., and Fletcher, D. J., Subjective vs. objective description of judgment policy. Psychonomic science, 18, 1970, 249–250.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tucker, L. R., A suggested alternative formulation in the developments by Hursch, Hammond, and Hursch, and by Hammond, Hursch, and Todd. Psychological Review, 71, 1964, 528–530.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tversky, A., Elimination by aspects, Psychological Review, 79, 1972, 281–299.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tversky, A., Features of similarity, Psychological Review, 24, 1977, 372–452.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tversky, A., and Kahneman, D., The framing of decisions and the rationality of choice. Science, 1980 (in press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Von Neumann, J., and Morgenstern, O., Theory of Games and Economic behavior, 2nd ed., Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1947.

    Google Scholar 

  • Von Winterfeldt, D., Multi-attribute utility theory: Theoretical background and an experimental validation. The University of Michigan, 1971.

    Google Scholar 

  • Waid, C.C., and Schoemaker, P. J. H., On the fidelity of multiattribute preference representations: Some analytical considerations. In Multiple Criteria Decision Making, J. Morse, (ed.), Springer-Verlag, 1981.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wainer, H., Estimating coefficents in linear models: “It don’t make no nevermind.” Psychological Bulletin, 83, 1976, 213–217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilks, S. S., Weighting systems for linear functions of correlated variables when there is no dependent variable. Psychometrika, 3, 1938, 23–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams, C., and Crawford, G., Analysis of subjective judgment matrices. Rand Report R-2572-AF, Santa Monica, California, May 1980.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yntema, D. B., and Torgerson, W. S., Man-computer cooperation in decisions requiring common sense. IRE Transactions, HFE 2, no. 1, 1961, 20–26.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Graduate School of Business, University of Chicago, USA

    Paul J. H. Schoemaker

Authors
  1. Paul J. H. Schoemaker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Business Administration, University of Delaware, Newark, DE, 19711, USA

    Joel N. Morse

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1981 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Schoemaker, P.J.H. (1981). Behavioral Issues in Multiattribute Utility Modeling and Decision Analysis. In: Morse, J.N. (eds) Organizations: Multiple Agents with Multiple Criteria. Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems, vol 190. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-45527-8_29

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-45527-8_29

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-10821-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-642-45527-8

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation