Abstract
The general problem of how to determine the worth or utility of alternatives that vary on many dimensions is of great practical importance. Although the number and types of situations that require such evaluations are large, the most usual way of performing such tasks has been unaided “intuition” (or, clinical judgment); i.e., the decision maker somehow does a mental trade-off analysis between the various attributes and alternatives in order to come to an evaluation/ decision. The cognitive difficulties of performing such a feat are formidable. For example, consider a situation with ten alternatives, each varying on six attributes. The intuitive decision maker has the task of locating ten alternatives in a six dimensional indifference space and picking the one with the highest utility. In such complex situations, an accumulating body of psychological research on the decision process has shown that people will reduce task complexity by using various heuristics (e.g., Tversky, 1969; 1972; Payne, 1976). While these heuristics have the advantage of allowing a decision maker to perform a complex task, they may lead to non-optimal behavior (e.g., consistent intransitivities). Furthermore, the literature on clinical judgment (Meehl, 1954; Sawyer, 1966) has also shown that experts have great difficulty in intuitively combining information in appropriate ways.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
M. L. Blum and J. C. Naylor, Industrial Psychology, Harper and Row, New York, 1968.
J. Cohen, Multiple regression as a general data-analytic system, Psych. Bull., 70(1968), pp. 426–443.
R. M. Dawes and B. Corrigan, Linear models in decision making, Psych. Bull., 81(1974), pp. 97–106.
R. T. Eckenrode, Weighting multiple criteria, Mgt. Sci., 12(1965), pp. 180–192.
W. Edwards, Social utilities, The Eng. Econ., Summer Symposium Series, 6(1971).
—, Comment on Equal weighting in multiattribute models: A rationale, an example, and some extensions, by Hillel J. Einhom. In M. Schiff and G. Sorter (eds.), Proceedings of the conference on topical research in accounting, New York University Press, 1976.
W. Edwards, L. D. Phillips, W. L. Hayes, and B. C. Goodman, Probabilistic information processing systems: Design and evaluation, IEEE Trans, on Sys. Sci. and Cyber., SSC-4, 1968, pp. 248–265.
H. J. Einhorn, Expert measurement and mechanical combination, Org. Beh. and Human Perf., 7(1972), pp. 86–106.
—, Expert judgment: Some necessary conditions and an example, J. Appl. Psych., 59(1974), pp. 562–571.
—, Equal weighting in multiattribute models: A rationale, an example, and some extensions. In M. Schiff and G. Sorter (eds.), Proceedings of the conference on topical research in accounting, New York University Press, New York, 1976.
H. J. Einhorn and R. M. Hogarth, Unit weighting schemes for decision making, Org. Beh. and Human Perf., 13(1975), pp. 171–192.
P. C. Gardiner and W. Edwards, Public values: Multiattribute-utility measurement for social decision making. In M. F. Kaplan and S. Schwartz (eds.), Human judgment and decision processes, Academic Press, New York, 1975.
E. E. Ghiselli, Theory of psychological measurement, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1964.
C. J. Grayson, Management science and business practice, Harv. Bus. Rev., (1973), pp. 41–48.
J. P. Guilford, Psychometric methods, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1954.
K. R. Hammond and L. Adelman, Science, values, and human judgment, Sci., 194(1976), pp. 389–396.
G. P. Huber, Multiattribute utility models: A review of field and field-like studies, Mgt. Sci., 20(1974), pp. 1393–1402.
R. L. Keeney and H. Raiffa, Decisions with multiple objectives, Wiley, New York, 1976.
P. E. Meehl, Clinical versus statistical prediction, University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, 1954.
M. F. O’Connor, The application of multiattribute scaling procedures to the development of indices of water quality, Report 7339, Center for Mathematical Studies in Business and Economics, University of Chicago, Chicago, 1973.
J. W. Payne, Task complexity and contingent processing in decision making: An information search and protocol analysis, Org. Beh. and Human Perf., 16(1976), pp. 366–387.
J. Sawyer, Measurement and prediction: Clinical and statistical, Psych. Bull., 66(1966), pp. 178–200.
R. L. Thorndike, Personnel selection, Wiley, New York, 1949.
A. Tversky, Intransitivity of preferences, Psych. Rev., 76(1969), pp. 31–48.
—, Elimination by aspects: A theory of choice, Psych. Rev., 79(1972), pp. 281–299.
A. Tversky and D. Kahneman, Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases, Sci., 185(1974), pp. 1124–1131.
H. Wainer, Estimating coefficients in linear models: It don’t make no nevermind, Psych. Bull., 83(1976), pp. 213–217.
D. B. Yntema and W. S. Torgerson, Man-computer cooperation in decisions requiring common sense, IRE Trans, of the Prof. Group on Human Factors in Electronics, HFE 2 (1), (1961), pp. 20–26.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1978 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Einhorn, H.J., McCoach, W. (1978). A Simple Multiattribute Utility Procedure for Evaluation. In: Zionts, S. (eds) Multiple Criteria Problem Solving. Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems, vol 155. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-46368-6_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-46368-6_6
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-540-08661-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-46368-6
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive