Abstract
As we have already learned from the contributions of several participants of this conference (e. g., Bauer & Wegener’s comments on Humphreys’ paper), one of the main problems in the application of multi-attribute utility (MAU) theory to real world decision problems seems to be the attributes per se. Actually, this is not a problem inherent in the theory per se, since MAU theory, or at least the model testing part of it, might be applied to any attributes. The usefulness of the results of MAU analysis will, however, depend to a great extent on the attributes used and their relation to one’s objectives. Now usually these attributes have to be searched for, identified formulated, and operationalized before we can start to evaluate anything. This importance of this structuring phase or goal analysis is stressed, for example, by the number of pages devoted to this problem in such basic texts as Raiffa (1969) or Miller III (1970). These attribute formulation procedures have many of the influences of a creative process and as such are subject to some random influences. The results, in our case the attributes, are not only determined by the goals of the decision maker, but are also influenced by many situational and personal factors more or less outside the control of the decision analyst.
This study was conducted at the Sonderforschungsbereich 24, Sozialund wirtschaftspsychologische Entscheidungsforschung at the University
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
Aschenbrenner, K.M. & Kasubek, W. Effekt von Training und Gruppen- arbeit auf die Bestimmung von Nutzenfunktionen mittels Indifferenz- wahrscheinlichkeiten. Manuscript in preparation, 1975
Bauer, V., Gebert, A. & Meise, J. Evaluation in urban planning (Report Pt. 1)., Frankfurt, Germany: Battelle Institut, 1973.
Bauer, V. & Wegener, M. Simulation, evaluation, and conflict analysis in urban planning., Proceedings of the IEEE, 1975, 63, 405–413.
Dawes, R.M. & Corrigan, B. Linear models in decision making. Psychological Bulletin, 1974, 81, 95–106.
Fischer, G.W. Four methods for assessing multiattribute utility functions (Tech. Rep. 037230-6-T)., Ann Arbor, Mich.: Engineering Psychology Laboratory, University of Michigan, 1972.
Fischer, G.W. Experimental applications of multiattribute utility models., In D.Wendt & C.Vlek (Eds.), Utility, probability, and human decision making. Dordrecht, Holland: Reidel, 1975.
Fishburn, P.C. Methods for estimating additive utilities., Management Science, 1967, 13, 435–453.
Fishburn, P.C. & Keeney, R.L. Seven independence concepts and continuous multiattribute utility functions., Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 1974, 11, 294–327.
Hall, J. & Watson, W.H. The effect of a normative intervention on group decision making., Human relations, 1970, 23, 299–317.
Huber, G.P. Multiattribute utility models: A review of field and field like studies. Management Science, 1974, 20, 1393–1402.
Humphreys, P. Applications of multiattribute utility theory., This volume.
Lord, F.M. & Novick, R.M. Statistical theories of mental test scores. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1968.
MacCrimon, K.R. Inproving the system design and evaluation process by the use of trade-off information (Memorandum RM-5877-DOT). Santa Monica, California: The Rand Corporation, 1969
Miller III, J.R. Professional decision making: A procedure for evaluating complex alternatives. New York: N.Y.: 1970.
Nemiroff, P.M. Group decision making as influenced by consensus and self orientation (Paper No. 426)., Lafayette, Ind.: Krannert Graduate School of Industrial Administration, Purdue University, 1973.
O’Connor, M.F. The application of multiattribute scaling procedures to the development of indices of water quality (Report No. 7339)., Chicago: University of Chicago, 1973.
Raiffa, H. Preferences for multiattributed alternatives (Memorandum RM-5868-D0T/RC).,Santa Monica, California: The Rand Corporation, 1969.
Winterfeldt, D. von Multiattribute utility theory: Theoretical background and an empirical evaluation. Unpublished diploma thesis, University of Hamburg, Germany, 1971.
Yntema, D.B., & Torgerson, W.S. Man-computer cooperation in decisions requiring common sense., IRE Transactions on Human Factors in Electronics, 1961, HFE-2, 20–26
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1977 D. Reidel Publishing Company, Dordrecht-Holland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Aschenbrenner, K.M. (1977). Influence of Attribute Formulation on the Evaluation of Apartments by Multi-Attribute Utility Procedures. In: Jungermann, H., De Zeeuw, G. (eds) Decision Making and Change in Human Affairs. Theory and Decision Library, vol 16. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-1276-8_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-1276-8_7
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-010-1278-2
Online ISBN: 978-94-010-1276-8
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive