Tailoring value elicitation to decision makers' numeracy and fluency: Expressing value judgments in numbers or words
In organizational settings, options evaluation requires managers to express value judgments on multiple criteria. This research investigates the influence of decision makers' numeracy (ability to use appropriate numerical principles) and fluency (ability to express oneself in words) on their subjective experience of value elicitation as supported by two different techniques: direct rating and MACBETH. The former asks for value judgments to be expressed numerically, the latter non-numerically. The results of our experiment indicate that the two techniques are not psychologically equivalent: decision makers with higher numeracy express values more easily when assisted by the numerical technique whereas decision makers with higher fluency find value elicitation easier with the non-numerical technique. These findings highlight the importance of tailoring value elicitation to decision makers' numeracy and fluency. Implications for decision scientists and analysts are discussed.
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.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Volume (Year): 44 (2014)
Issue (Month): C ()
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/375/description#description|
|Order Information:|| Postal: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/supportfaq.cws_home/regional|
References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Edwards, Ward & Barron, F. Hutton, 1994. "SMARTS and SMARTER: Improved Simple Methods for Multiattribute Utility Measurement," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 60(3), pages 306-325, December.
- Geldermann, Jutta & Bertsch, Valentin & Treitz, Martin & French, Simon & Papamichail, Konstantinia N. & Hämäläinen, Raimo P., 2009. "Multi-criteria decision support and evaluation of strategies for nuclear remediation management," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 37(1), pages 238-251, February.
- Bana e Costa, Carlos A. & Oliveira, Carlos S. & Vieira, Victor, 2008. "Prioritization of bridges and tunnels in earthquake risk mitigation using multicriteria decision analysis: Application to Lisbon," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 36(3), pages 442-450, June.
- Payne, John W & Bettman, James R & Schkade, David A, 1999. "Measuring Constructed Preferences: Towards a Building Code," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 19(1-3), pages 243-70, December.
- Bottomley, Paul A. & Doyle, John R., 2013. "Comparing the validity of numerical judgements elicited by direct rating and point allocation: Insights from objectively verifiable perceptual tasks," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 228(1), pages 148-157.
- Barcus, Ana & Montibeller, Gilberto, 2008. "Supporting the allocation of software development work in distributed teams with multi-criteria decision analysis," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 36(3), pages 464-475, June.
- Aloysius, John A. & Davis, Fred D. & Wilson, Darryl D. & Ross Taylor, A. & Kottemann, Jeffrey E., 2006. "User acceptance of multi-criteria decision support systems: The impact of preference elicitation techniques," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 169(1), pages 273-285, February.
- Erev, Ido & Cohen, Brent L., 1990. "Verbal versus numerical probabilities: Efficiency, biases, and the preference paradox," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 45(1), pages 1-18, February.
- Bana E Costa, Carlos A. & Stewart, Theodor J. & Vansnick, Jean-Claude, 1997. "Multicriteria decision analysis: Some thoughts based on the tutorial and discussion sessions of the ESIGMA meetings," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 99(1), pages 28-37, May.
- Bana e Costa, Carlos A. & Oliveira, Mónica D., 2012. "A multicriteria decision analysis model for faculty evaluation," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 40(4), pages 424-436.
- Shane Frederick, 2005. "Cognitive Reflection and Decision Making," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 19(4), pages 25-42, Fall.
- Bana e Costa, Carlos A. & Corrêa, Émerson C. & De Corte, Jean-Marie & Vansnick, Jean-Claude, 2002. "Facilitating bid evaluation in public call for tenders: a socio-technical approach," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 30(3), pages 227-242, June.
- Stewart, Theodor J. & French, Simon & Rios, Jesus, 2013. "Integrating multicriteria decision analysis and scenario planning—Review and extension," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 41(4), pages 679-688.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:jomega:v:44:y:2014:i:c:p:83-90. 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: (Shamier, Wendy)
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.