Decisional Conflict and User Acceptance of Multicriteria Decision-Making Aids

Despite the development of increasingly sophisticated and refined multicriteria decision-making (MCDM) methods, an examination of the experimental evidence indicates that users most often prefer relatively unsophisticated methods. In this paper, we synthesize theories and empirical findings from the psychology of judgment and choice to provide a new theoretical explanation for such user preferences. Our argument centers on the assertion that the MCDM method preferred by decision makers is a function of the degree to which the method tends to introduce decisional conflict. The model we develop relates response mode, decision strategy, and the salience of decisional conflict to user preferences among decision aids. We then show that the model is consistent with empirical results in MCDM studies. Next, the role of decisional conflict in problem formulation aids is briefly discussed. Finally, we outline future research needed to thoroughly test the theoretical mechanisms we have proposed.

[1]  Fred D. Davis.  Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology , 1989, MIS Q..

[2]  Henry Montgomery,et al.  Attractiveness of decision rules , 1980 .

[3]  Arthur M. Geoffrion,et al.  An Interactive Approach for Multi-Criterion Optimization, with an Application to the Operation of an Academic Department , 1972 .

[4]  Y. Haimes,et al.  Multiobjectives in water resource systems analysis: The Surrogate Worth Trade Off Method , 1974 .

[5]  John W. Payne,et al.  Contingent decision behavior. , 1982 .

[6]  Joanna R. Baker,et al.  Multiple Attribute Decision Making with Inexact Value-Function Assessment , 1990 .

[7]  Fred D. Davis,et al.  User Acceptance of Computer Technology: A Comparison of Two Theoretical Models , 1989 .

[8]  Ralph E. Steuer,et al.  An interactive weighted Tchebycheff procedure for multiple objective programming , 1983, Math. Program..

[9]  Barbara M. Carlin,et al.  Problem structuring heuristics in strategic decision making , 1990 .

[10]  S. Zionts,et al.  An Interactive Multiple Objective Linear Programming Method for a Class of Underlying Nonlinear Utility Functions , 1983 .

[11]  Charles R. Schwenk.  Conflict in organizational decision making: an exploratory study of its effects in for-profit and not-for-profit organizations , 1990 .

[12]  Alan R. Hevner,et al.  Decision insight systems for microcomputers: A critical evaluation , 1986, Comput. Oper. Res..

[13]  Jyrki Wallenius,et al.  Comparative Evaluation of Some Interactive Approaches to Multicriterion Optimization , 1975 .

[14]  Marc E. Posner,et al.  Linear max-min programming , 1981, Math. Program..

[15]  Stanley Zionts,et al.  Multiple criteria mathematical programming: an updated overview and several approaches , 1988 .

[16]  A. Tversky,et al.  On the psychology of prediction , 1973 .

[17]  H. G. Daellenbach,et al.  A comparative evaluation of interactive solution methods for multiple objective decision models , 1987 .

[18]  Dan Zakay,et al.  Post-decisional confidence and conflict experienced in a choice process , 1985 .

[19]  R. Hogarth,et al.  BEHAVIORAL DECISION THEORY: PROCESSES OF JUDGMENT AND CHOICE , 1981 .

[20]  Robert S. Billings,et al.  The effects of response mode and importance on decision-making strategies: Judgment versus choice , 1988 .

[21]  R. Abelson.  Decision making and decision theory , 1985 .

[22]  Berndt Brehmer,et al.  New directions in research on decision making , 1986 .

[23]  P. Humphreys,et al.  Experiences with MAUD: Aiding decision structuring versus bootstrapping the decision maker☆ , 1980 .

[24]  Ram Narasimhan,et al.  An Experimental Evaluation of Articulation of Preferences in Multiple Criterion Decision‐Making (MCDM) Methods , 1988 .

[25]  Carl Martin Allwood,et al.  Response selection strategies and realism of confidence judgments , 1987 .

[26]  S. Zionts,et al.  An Interactive Programming Method for Solving the Multiple Criteria Problem , 1976 .

[27]  R. Benayoun,et al.  Linear programming with multiple objective functions: Step method (stem) , 1971, Math. Program..

[28]  A. Tversky,et al.  Contingent weighting in judgment and choice , 1988 .

[29]  Peter Wright.  Consumer Choice Strategies: Simplifying Vs. Optimizing , 1975 .

[30]  W. Remus,et al.  Evidence and principles of functional and dysfunctional DSS , 1987 .

[31]  P. Tetlock.  Accountability: The neglected social context of judgment and choice. , 1985 .

[32]  George P. Huber,et al.  DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEMS FOR ILL‐STRUCTURED PROBLEMS: AN EMPIRICAL STUDY , 1987 .

[33]  B. Fischhoff,et al.  Knowing with Certainty: The Appropriateness of Extreme Confidence. , 1977 .

[34]  B. Fischhoff,et al.  On the Psychology of Experimental Surprises. , 1977 .