IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ormnsc/v45y1999i7p972-979.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Elicitation and Context Effects in Judgments: Fixed Sum Versus Fixed Scale Frames

Author

Listed:
  • John R. Doyle

    (Cardiff Business School, University of Wales, Cardiff CF1 3EU, United Kingdom)

Abstract

Two apparently similar methods for making numerical judgments about a set of objects (point allocation and direct rating) have been shown to yield different profiles of values (here, numerical judgments) attached to Ranks. Direct rating typically leads to a nearly linear relationship of Value with Rank. When using point allocation, people tend to produce a half U-shape of Value with Rank, evidenced by a positive quadratic term in Rank, which is not present for direct rating. We argue that point allocation imposes a fixed-sum frame on the judgment task. Furthermore, certain problems, such as allocating a budget, are intrinsically framed as fixed-sum. These problems also lead to quadratic curvature of numerical judgment with Rank. We discuss the implications of these effects, both in formal and informal contexts.

Suggested Citation

  • John R. Doyle, 1999. "Elicitation and Context Effects in Judgments: Fixed Sum Versus Fixed Scale Frames," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 45(7), pages 972-979, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:inm:ormnsc:v:45:y:1999:i:7:p:972-979
    DOI: 10.1287/mnsc.45.7.972
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.45.7.972
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/mnsc.45.7.972?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. F. Hutton Barron & Bruce E. Barrett, 1996. "Decision Quality Using Ranked Attribute Weights," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 42(11), pages 1515-1523, November.
    2. Weber, Martin & Borcherding, Katrin, 1993. "Behavioral influences on weight judgments in multiattribute decision making," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 67(1), pages 1-12, May.
    3. Srivastava, Joydeep & Connolly, Terry & Beach, Lee Roy, 1995. "Do Ranks Suffice? A Comparison of Alternative Weighting Approaches in Value Elicitation," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 63(1), pages 112-116, July.
    4. Doyle, John R. & Green, Rodney H. & Bottomley, Paul A., 1997. "Judging Relative Importance: Direct Rating and Point Allocation Are Not Equivalent," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 70(1), pages 65-72, April.
    5. Kmietowicz, ZW & Pearman, AD, 1984. "Decision theory, linear partial information and statistical dominance," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 12(4), pages 391-399.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. 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.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Ewa Roszkowska, 2020. "The extention rank ordering criteria weighting methods in fuzzy enviroment," Operations Research and Decisions, Wroclaw University of Science and Technology, Faculty of Management, vol. 30(2), pages 91-114.
    2. Roger Chapman Burk & Richard M. Nehring, 2023. "An Empirical Comparison of Rank-Based Surrogate Weights in Additive Multiattribute Decision Analysis," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 20(1), pages 55-72, March.
    3. Chang, Yu-Hern & Yeh, Chung-Hsing, 2001. "Evaluating airline competitiveness using multiattribute decision making," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 29(5), pages 405-415, October.
    4. Suk, Kwanho & Yoon, Song-Oh, 2012. "The moderating role of decision task goals in attribute weight convergence," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 118(1), pages 37-45.
    5. Doyle, John R. & Green, Rodney H. & Bottomley, Paul A., 1997. "Judging Relative Importance: Direct Rating and Point Allocation Are Not Equivalent," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 70(1), pages 65-72, April.
    6. 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.
    7. Joshua Sohn & Pierre Bisquert & Patrice Buche & Abdelraouf Hecham & Pradip P. Kalbar & Ben Goldstein & Morten Birkved & Stig Irving Olsen, 2020. "Argumentation Corrected Context Weighting-Life Cycle Assessment: A Practical Method of Including Stakeholder Perspectives in Multi-Criteria Decision Support for LCA," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(6), pages 1-23, March.
    8. Risto Lahdelma & Pekka Salminen, 2001. "SMAA-2: Stochastic Multicriteria Acceptability Analysis for Group Decision Making," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 49(3), pages 444-454, June.
    9. Bottomley, Paul A. & Doyle, John R., 2001. "A comparison of three weight elicitation methods: good, better, and best," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 29(6), pages 553-560, December.
    10. Lienert, Judit & Duygan, Mert & Zheng, Jun, 2016. "Preference stability over time with multiple elicitation methods to support wastewater infrastructure decision-making," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 253(3), pages 746-760.
    11. Doyle, John R., 1999. "Evaluating OR/MS research," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 27(3), pages 403-405, June.
    12. Sam Park, Kyung & Sang Lee, Kyung & Seong Eum, Yun & Park, Kwangtae, 2001. "Extended methods for identifying dominance and potential optimality in multi-criteria analysis with imprecise information," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 134(3), pages 557-563, November.
    13. Jessop, Alan, 2014. "IMP: A decision aid for multiattribute evaluation using imprecise weight estimates," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 18-29.
    14. de Almeida, Jonatas Araujo & Costa, Ana Paula Cabral Seixas & de Almeida-Filho, Adiel Teixeira, 2016. "A new method for elicitation of criteria weights in additive models: Flexible and interactive tradeoffAuthor-Name: de Almeida, Adiel Teixeira," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 250(1), pages 179-191.
    15. K S Park & I Jeong, 2011. "How to treat strict preference information in multicriteria decision analysis," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 62(10), pages 1771-1783, October.
    16. Poyhonen, Mari & Hamalainen, Raimo P., 2001. "On the convergence of multiattribute weighting methods," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 129(3), pages 569-585, March.
    17. Eduarda Asfora Frej & Adiel Teixeira Almeida & Ana Paula Cabral Seixas Costa, 2019. "Using data visualization for ranking alternatives with partial information and interactive tradeoff elicitation," Operational Research, Springer, vol. 19(4), pages 909-931, December.
    18. Dong, Yucheng & Liu, Yating & Liang, Haiming & Chiclana, Francisco & Herrera-Viedma, Enrique, 2018. "Strategic weight manipulation in multiple attribute decision making," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 154-164.
    19. Kaddani, Sami & Vanderpooten, Daniel & Vanpeperstraete, Jean-Michel & Aissi, Hassene, 2017. "Weighted sum model with partial preference information: Application to multi-objective optimization," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 260(2), pages 665-679.
    20. Ahn, Byeong Seok, 2017. "Approximate weighting method for multiattribute decision problems with imprecise parameters," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 87-95.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:inm:ormnsc:v:45:y:1999:i:7:p:972-979. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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 CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc 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 RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Asher (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.html .

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.