Preference Inconsistency in Multidisciplinary Design Decision

priori. However, research from behavioral psychology and experimental economics suggests that individuals construct preferences on a case-by-case basis when called to make a decision rather than referring to an existing preference structure. Thus, across different contexts, preference elicitation methods used in design decision making can lead to preference inconsistencies. This paper offers a framework for understanding preference inconsistencies, giving three examples of preference inconsistencies that demonstrate the implications of unnoticed inconsistencies, and also discusses the design benefits of testing for inconsistencies. Three common engineering and marketing design methods are discussed: discrete choice analysis, modeling stated versus revealed preferences, and the Kano method. In these examples, we discuss perceived relationships between product attributes, identify market opportunities for a “green” product, and show how people find it is easier to imagine delight rather than necessity of product attributes. Understanding preference inconsistencies offers new insights into the relationship between user and product design. DOI: 10.1115/1.3066526

[1]  P. Slovic The Construction of Preference , 1995 .

[2]  Richard Gonzalez,et al.  The construction of preferences for crux and sentinel product attributes , 2007 .

[3]  D. Henry,et al.  The effects of information framing on the practices of physicians , 1999, Journal of General Internal Medicine.

[4]  A. Tversky,et al.  Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk — Source link , 2007 .

[5]  P. K. Kannan,et al.  Multi-Objective Single Product Robust Optimization: An Integrated Design and Marketing Approach , 2006 .

[6]  Kemper Lewis,et al.  Decentralized Design at the Edge of Rationality , 2006 .

[7]  Wei Chen,et al.  Discrete Choice Demand Modeling for Decision-Based Design , 2005 .

[8]  P. K. Kannan,et al.  Design of Robust New Products Under Variability: Marketing Meets Design , 2005 .

[9]  Jeremy J. Michalek Preference coordination in engineering design decision-making. , 2005 .

[10]  Kemper Lewis,et al.  Preference Consistency in Multiattribute Decision Making , 2005 .

[11]  Kemper Lewis,et al.  Multi-Attribute Decision Making Using Hypothetical Equivalents and Inequivalents , 2004 .

[12]  N. Schwarz,et al.  Thinking About Answers: The Application of Cognitive Processes to Survey Methodology , 1995, Quality of Life Research.

[13]  Kenneth E. Train,et al.  Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation , 2016 .

[14]  Peter E. Rossi,et al.  Bayesian Statistics and Marketing , 2005 .

[15]  Kathy Piselli,et al.  The Grassroots of a Green Revolution: Polling America on the Environment , 2002 .

[16]  J. W. Hutchinson,et al.  Non-Conscious Influences on Consumer Choice , 2002 .

[17]  Jeffrey Bennett,et al.  Yea-saying and Validation of a Choice Model of Green Product Choice , 2001 .

[18]  J. W. Hutchinson,et al.  Unobserved Heterogeneity as an Alternative Explanation for 'Reversal' Effects in Behavioral Research , 2000 .

[19]  Joffre Swait,et al.  Stated Choice Methods: Relaxing the IID assumption – introducing variants of the MNL model , 2000 .

[20]  Johanna Helena Kerstholt,et al.  Judicial decision making: order of evidence presentation and availability of background information , 1998 .

[21]  R. Nickerson Confirmation Bias: A Ubiquitous Phenomenon in Many Guises , 1998 .

[22]  Seymour Sudman,et al.  Thinking about Answers: The Application of Cognitive Process to Survey Methodology , 1996 .

[23]  J. Kagel,et al.  Handbook of Experimental Economics , 1997 .

[24]  William M. Goldstein,et al.  The relative importance of relative importance: Inferring other people's preferences from relative importance ratings and previous decisions , 1992 .

[25]  Daniel Kahneman,et al.  Valuing public goods: The purchase of moral satisfaction , 1992 .

[26]  P. Tetlock,et al.  Social and cognitive strategies for coping with accountability: conformity, complexity, and bolstering. , 1989, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[27]  N. Kano,et al.  Attractive Quality and Must-Be Quality , 1984 .

[28]  A. Tversky,et al.  Prospect Theory : An Analysis of Decision under Risk Author ( s ) : , 2007 .

[29]  Daryl J. Bem,et al.  Template matching: A proposal for probing the ecological validity of experimental settings in social psychology. , 1979 .

[30]  J. Fleiss,et al.  A Re-analysis of the Reliability of Psychiatric Diagnosis , 1974, British Journal of Psychiatry.