Assessment of multiplicative utility functions via holistic judgments

Abstract This paper presents a decomposition procedure for assessing multiplicative multiattribute utility functions which relies solely on a few holistic assessments of utilities. Consistent with the procedures of Keeney and Raiffa, the procedure exploits the basic preference attitudes of the decision maker to identify the form of the utility function. The procedure differs in that it uses a familiar response mode, holistic assessment of profiles, to determine the scaling constants and univariate utility functions comprising the multiplicative utility function. Analyses of synthetic respondents are presented which support the efficacy of the procedure. Finally, it is argued that the proposed procedure has equal claim on the “major advantages”: namely, explicitly defining evaluation criteria, communication about value conflicts, and facilitating sensitivity analyses of value trade-offs—advantages commonly associated with decomposition methods. The procedure's likely advantage is ultimate ease of administration in specific circumstances.

[1]  Yoram Wind,et al.  Subjective evaluation models and conjoint measurement , 1972 .

[2]  Ralph L. Keeney,et al.  A Decision Analysis with Multiple Objectives: the Mexico City Airport , 1973 .

[3]  G. Huber,et al.  A study of self‐explicated utility models , 1970 .

[4]  Yoram Wind,et al.  Analytical Approach to Marketing Decisions in Health-Care Organizations , 1976, Oper. Res..

[5]  R. L. Keeney,et al.  Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Trade-Offs , 1977, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics.

[6]  Jeffrey P. Krischer,et al.  Utility Structure of a Medical Decision-Making Problem , 1976, Oper. Res..

[7]  Paul E. Green,et al.  On the Design of Choice Experiments Involving Multifactor Alternatives , 1974 .

[8]  Ralph L. Keeney,et al.  A Utility Function for Examining Policy Affecting Salmon on the Skeena River , 1977 .

[9]  George P. Huber,et al.  Multi-Attribute Utility Models: A Review of Field and Field-Like Studies , 1974 .

[10]  Vithala R. Rao,et al.  Conjoint Measurement- for Quantifying Judgmental Data , 1971 .

[11]  S. Addelman Orthogonal Main-Effect Plans for Asymmetrical Factorial Experiments , 1962 .

[12]  Ralph L. Keeney,et al.  Multiplicative Utility Functions , 1974, Oper. Res..

[13]  Paul E. Green,et al.  Robustness of Conjoint Analysis: Some Monté Carlo Results , 1978 .

[14]  Ralph L. Keeney,et al.  The art of assessing multiattribute utility functions , 1977 .

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

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

[17]  P. Suppes,et al.  Contemporary Developments in Mathematical Psychology , 1976 .