Advanced Search
MyIDEAS: Login to save this article or follow this journal

An Experimental Comparison of Different Approaches to Determining Weights in Additive Utility Models

Contents:

Author Info

  • Paul J. H. Schoemaker

    (University of Chicago)

  • C. Carter Waid

    (Formerly with St. Edward's University, Austin)

Abstract

Several studies this past decade have examined differences between holistic and decomposed approaches to determining weights in additive utility models. Some have argued that it matters little which procedure is used, whereas others strongly favored particular methods. In this paper we address this controversy experimentally by comparing five conceptually different approaches in terms of their weights and predictive ability. The five methods are (1) multiple linear and non-linear regression analyses of ten and fifteen holistic assessments, (2) direct decomposed tradeoffs as proposed by Keeney and Raiffa (Keeney, R. L., H. Raiffa. 1977. Decisions with Multiple Objectives. Wiley, New York.), (3) a recent eigen-vector technique of Saaty (Saaty, T. L. 1977. A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures. J. Math. Psych. 15 (3) 234--281.) involving redundant pairwise comparisons of attributes, (4) a straightforward allocation of hundred importance points, and (5) unit weighting (i.e., equal weighting after standardizing the attributes). The decision task involved college admissions. Subjects were asked to evaluate hypothetical college applicants on the basis of verbal SAT, quantitative SAT, high-school grade point average, and a measure of extra-curricular activity. Linear as well as nonlinear attribute utility functions were used in constructing the additive models. The nonlinear functions were specified graphically by the subjects through selection from five different shapes (i.e., one per attribute). To test the predictive ability of the various models, each subject made twenty separate pairwise comparisons of alternatives (including direction and strength of preference). The prediction criteria were percentage correct predictions as well as correlations (using these twenty pairs). Seventy subjects were tested, using an (order-controlled) within-subject design, in comparing the different methods of weight determination. Monetary incentives were used to enhance motivation. In terms of findings, the methods generally differed systematically concerning the weights given to the various attributes, as well as the variances of the resulting predictions. On average, however, the methods predicted about equally well, except for unit weighting which was clearly inferior. The findings differ in this regard from the general literature. Furthermore, nonlinear models were found to be inferior to linear ones. Finally, subjects judged the methods to differ significantly in difficulty and trustworthiness, which were found to correlate inversely. The overall results raise various applied and theoretical issues, which are discussed.

Download Info

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.28.2.182
Download Restriction: no

Bibliographic Info

Article provided by INFORMS in its journal Management Science.

Volume (Year): 28 (1982)
Issue (Month): 2 (February)
Pages: 182-196

as in new window
Handle: RePEc:inm:ormnsc:v:28:y:1982:i:2:p:182-196

Contact details of provider:
Postal: 7240 Parkway Drive, Suite 300, Hanover, MD 21076 USA
Phone: +1-443-757-3500
Fax: 443-757-3515
Email:
Web page: http://www.informs.org/
More information through EDIRC

Related research

Keywords: decision making; additive utility models;

References

No references listed on IDEAS
You can help add them by filling out this form.

Citations

Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
as in new window

Cited by:
This item has more than 25 citations. To prevent cluttering this page, these citations are listed on a separate page.

Lists

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

Statistics

Access and download statistics

Corrections

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:inm:ormnsc:v:28:y:1982:i:2:p:182-196. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Mirko Janc).

If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.