The role of task properties in determining the relative effectiveness of multiattribute weighting techniques

Abstract Most studies comparing the relative effectiveness of multiattribute weighting techniques have found few differences. These studies have, however, failed to systematically vary attribute properties such as number of attributes and distribution of correct attribute weights. It was hypothesized that any weighting technique would be more effective at arriving at the correct weights the smaller the number of attributes because of lessened information processing requirements. In addition, it was hypothesized that the relative effectiveness of different weighting techniques would depend on the peakedness of the distribution of correct attribute weights because different weighting techniques should generate more peaked distributions than others. Two experiments were conducted to test these hypotheses. The first experiment focused on the accuracy of the weights assigned to attributes by individuals; the second on the accuracy of groups. Both experiments confirmed the first hypothesis regarding the number of attributes, but only the first experiment confirmed the second hypothesis regarding the peakedness of the distribution of attribute weights.

[1]  D. A. Seaver,et al.  A comparison of weight approximation techniques in multiattribute utility decision making , 1981 .

[2]  Thomas R. Stewart,et al.  A comparison of seven methods for obtaining subjective descriptions of judgmental policy , 1975 .

[3]  C. C. Waid,et al.  An Experimental Comparison of Different Approaches to Determining Weights in Additive Utility Models , 1982 .

[4]  G. W. Fischer,et al.  Convergent validation of decomposed multi-attribute utility assessment procedures for risky and riskless decisions , 1977 .

[5]  John Rohrbaugh,et al.  Improving the quality of group judgment: Social judgment analysis and the Delphi technique. , 1979 .

[6]  Howard Wainer,et al.  Estimating Coefficients in Linear Models: It Don't Make No Nevermind , 1976 .

[7]  W. Edwards.  How to Use Multi-Attribute Utility Measurement for Social Decision Making , 1976 .

[8]  B. J. Winer.  Statistical Principles in Experimental Design , 1992 .

[9]  R. John,et al.  A criterion validation of multiattribute utility analysis and of group communication strategy , 1980 .

[10]  N. Pennington,et al.  Human judgment and decision making: Theories, methods, and procedures , 1980 .

[11]  Leonard Adelman,et al.  A case history of the application of social judgment theory to policy formulation , 1975 .

[12]  R. Hogarth,et al.  Unit weighting schemes for decision making , 1975 .

[13]  A. V. D. Ven,et al.  Group Techniques for Program Planning , 1975 .

[14]  Richard S. John,et al.  Importance Weight Assessment for Additive, Riskless Preference Functions: A Review. , 1978 .

[15]  Colin F. Camerer,et al.  General conditions for the success of bootstrapping models , 1981 .

[16]  John Rohrbaugh,et al.  Improving the quality of group judgment: Social judgment analysis and the nominal group technique , 1981 .

[17]  Ward Edwards,et al.  How to Use Multiattribute Utility Measurement for Social Decisionmaking , 1977, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics.

[18]  T. R. Stewart,et al.  10 – SOCIAL JUDGMENT THEORY , 1975 .

[19]  Ward Edwards,et al.  Evaluating Credit Applications: A Validation of Multiattribute Utility Techniques Against a Real World Criterion, , 1980 .

[20]  Gregory W. Fischer,et al.  UTILITY MODELS FOR MULTIPLE OBJECTIVE DECISIONS: DO THEY ACCURATELY REPRESENT HUMAN PREFERENCES?* , 1979 .

[21]  Detlof von Winterfeldt,et al.  Evaluation of Complex Stimuli Using Multi-Attribute Utility Procedures , 1973 .