SOME CAUTIONARY NOTES ON THE USE OF CONJOINT MEASUREMENT FOR HUMAN JUDGMENT MODELING

Conjoint measurement has been suggested as a methodology that might be useful in assisting research concerned with the identification of the structural form of a judge's model. This paper synthesizes the results of some recent research that examined the robustness of this methodology. This research suggests that conjoint measurement has three major weaknesses: (1) certain biases exist when diagnosing model structure, (2) model diagnosis is limited to a small set of potential models, and (3) error substantially compromises conjoint measurement's ability to diagnose model structure. An empirical example that demonstrates some of the difficulties of using this methodology with experimental data is also presented.

[1]  R. Dawes,et al.  Linear models in decision making. , 1974 .

[2]  S. Moriarity,et al.  Modeling the Materiality Judgements of Audit Partners , 1976 .

[3]  David Klahr,et al.  A monte carlo investigation of the statistical significance of Kruskal's nonmetric scaling procedure , 1969 .

[4]  Robert H. Ashton,et al.  The robustness of linear models for decision-making , 1976 .

[5]  A. Tversky,et al.  Conjoint-measurement analysis of composition rules in psychology. , 1971 .

[6]  Edward J. Joyce,et al.  Expert Judgment In Audit Program Planning , 1976 .

[7]  J. R. Ullrich,et al.  A conjoint-measurement analysis of human judgment , 1974 .

[8]  Thomas S. Wallsten,et al.  Using conjoint-measurement models to investigate a theory about probabilistic information processing , 1976 .

[9]  Paul Slovic,et al.  Comparison of Bayesian and Regression Approaches to the Study of Information Processing in Judgment. , 1971 .

[10]  Lewis R. Goldberg,et al.  Man versus model of man: A rationale, plus some evidence, for a method of improving on clinical inferences. , 1970 .

[11]  Clyde H. Coombs,et al.  A test of ve-theories of risk and the effect of the central limit theorem , 1971 .

[12]  I Spence,et al.  A TABLE OF EXPECTED STRESS VALUES FOR RANDOM RANKINGS IN NONMETRIC MULTIDIMENSIONAL SCALING. , 1973, Multivariate behavioral research.

[13]  Henry B. Person.  CROSS‐COMPARISON OF ANOVA AND SCJM: A NEW APPROACH TO AXIOMATIC CONJOINT MEASUREMENT FOR NOISY DATA* , 1979 .

[14]  P. Padmos,et al.  QUANTITATIVE INTERPRETATION OF STRESS IN KRUSKAL'S MULTIDIMENSIONAL SCALING TECHNIQUE , 1971 .

[15]  F. H. Barron,et al.  AXIOMATIC CONJOINT MEASUREMENT , 1977 .

[16]  F. Hutton Barron,et al.  Assessment of multiplicative utility functions via holistic judgments , 1979 .

[17]  Norman H. Anderson,et al.  Comments on the articles of Hodges and of Schonemann, Cafferty, and Rotton. , 1973 .

[18]  G. W. Fischer,et al.  Multidimensional utility models for risky and riskless choice , 1976 .

[19]  T. Wallsten.  Conjoint-Measurement Framework for the Study of Probabilistic Information Processing. , 1972 .

[20]  Herbert H. Stenson,et al.  GOODNESS OF FIT FOR RANDOM RANKINGS IN KRUSKAL'S NONMETRIC SCALING PROCEDURE * , 1969 .

[21]  D. Emery,et al.  Axiomatic and numerical conjoint measurement: An evaluation of diagnostic efficacy , 1979 .

[22]  R. Ashton.  An Experimental Study of Internal Control Judgments , 1974 .