Toward an Improved Methodology to Construct and Reconcile Decision Analytic Preference Judgments

References

• Anderson RM, Hobbs BF. Using a Bayesian approach to quantify scale compatibility bias. Management Sci. (2002) 48(12):1555–1568Link, Google Scholar
• Barron FH, Barrett BE. Decision quality using ranked attribute weights. Management Sci. (1996) 42(11):1515–1523Link, Google Scholar
• Bell ML, Hobbs BF, Elliott EM, Ellis JH, Robinson Z. An evaluation of multi-criteria methods in integrated assessment of climate policy. J. Multi-Criteria Decision Anal. (2001) 10(5):229–256Crossref, Google Scholar
• Borcherding K, von Winterfeldt D. The effect of varying value trees on multiattribute evaluations. Acta Psychologica (1988) 68:153–170Crossref, Google Scholar
• Borcherding K, Eppel T, von Winterfeldt D. Comparison of weighting judgments in multiattribute utility measurement. Management Sci. (1991) 37(12):1603–1619Link, Google Scholar
• Brown R. Rational Choice and Judgment: Decision Analysis for the Decider (2005) (Wiley, Hoboken, NJ) Crossref, Google Scholar
• Carlson KA, Meloy MG, Russo JE. Leader-driven primacy: Using attribute order to affect consumer choice. J. Consumer Res. (2006) 32(4):513–518Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cronbach L, Meehl P. Construct validity in psychological tests. Psych. Bull. (1955) 52(4):281–302Crossref, Google Scholar
• Delquié P. Inconsistent trade-offs between attributes: New evidence in preference assessment biases. Management Sci. (1993) 39(11):1382–1395Link, Google Scholar
• Delquié P. “Bi-matching”: A new preference assessment method to reduce compatibility effects. Management Sci. (1997) 43(5):640–658Link, Google Scholar
• Edwards W, Hogarth RM. Unfinished tasks: A research agenda for behavioral decision theory. Insights in Decision Making: A Tribute to Hillel J. Einhorn (1990) (University of Chicago Press, Chicago) 44–65Google Scholar
• Edwards W, Barron FH. SMARTS and SMARTER: Improved simple methods for multiattribute utility measurement. Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processes (1994) 60(3):306–325Crossref, Google Scholar
• Eppel T. Eliciting and reconciling multiattribute weights. (1990) . Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California, Los AngelesGoogle Scholar
• Finucaine ML, Peters E, Slovic P, Schneider SL, Shanteau J. Judgment and decision making: The dance of affect and reason. Emerging Perspectives on Judgment and Decision Research (2003) (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK) 327–364Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fischer GW. Range sensitivity of attribute weights in multiattribute value models. Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processes (1995) 62(3):252–266Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fischer GW, Carmon Z, Ariely D, Zauberman G. Goal-based construction of preferences: Task goals and the prominence effect. Management Sci. (1999) 45(8):1057–1075Link, Google Scholar
• Fischhoff B, Slovic P, Lichtenstein S, Wallensten T. Knowing what you want: Measuring labile values. Cognitive Processes in Choice and Decision Behavior (1980) (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ) 117–141Google Scholar
• Fishburn PC. Methods of estimating additive utilities. Management Sci. (1967) 13(7):435–453Link, Google Scholar
• Gilovich T, Griffin D, Kahneman D. Heuristics and Biases: The Psychology of Intuitive Judgment (2002) (Cambridge University Press, New York) Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gregory R. Commentary on “Measuring constructed preferences: Towards a building code” by Payne, Bettman, and Schkade. J. Risk Uncertainty (1999) 19(1–3):273–275Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gregory R, McDaniels T, Small M. Valuing risk management choices. Risk Analysis and Society: An Interdisciplinary Characterization of the Field (2004) (Cambridge University Press, New York) 213–250Google Scholar
• Gregory R, Fischhoff B, McDaniels T. Acceptable input: Using decision analysis to guide public policy deliberations. Decision Anal. (2005) 2(1):4–16Link, Google Scholar
• Hamalainen RP, Alaja S. The threat of weighting biases in environmental decision analysis. Ecological Econom. (2008) 68(1–2):556–569Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hobbs BF, Horn GTF. Building public confidence in energy planning: A multimethod MCDM approach to demand-side planning at BC Gas. Energy Policy (1997) 25(3):357–375Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hobbs BF, Chankong V, Hamadeh W. Does choice of multicriteria method matter? An experiment in water resources planning. Water Resources Res. (1992) 28(7):1767–1779Crossref, Google Scholar
• Huber J, Ariely D, Fischer G. Expressing preferences in a principal-agent task: A comparison of choice, rating, and matching. Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processes (2002) 87(1):66–90Crossref, Google Scholar
• Huber J, Payne JW, Puto CP. Adding asymmetrically dominated alternatives: Violations of regularity and the similarity hypothesis. J. Consumer Res. (1982) 9(1):90–98Crossref, Google Scholar
• Huber J, Wittink DR, Fiedler JA, Miller R. The effectiveness of alternative preference elicitation procedures in predicting choice. J. Marketing Res. (1993) 30(1):105–114Crossref, Google Scholar
• Jacobi SK, Hobbs BF. Quantifying and mitigating the splitting bias and other value tree-induced weighting biases. Decision Anal. (2007) 4(4):194–210Link, Google Scholar
• Jia J, Fischer GW, Dyer J. Attribute weighting methods and decision quality in the presence of response error: A simulation study. J. Behav. Decision Making (1998) 11(2):85–105Crossref, Google Scholar
• John RS. Value tree analysis of social conflicts about risky technologies. (1984) . Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California, Los AngelesGoogle Scholar
• Kahneman D. Thinking, Fast and Slow (2011) (Farrar, Strauss and Giroux, New York) Google Scholar
• Kahneman D, Frederick S, Gilovich T, Griffin D, Kahneman D. Representativeness revisited: Attribute substitution in intuitive judgment. Heuristics and Biases: The Psychology of Intuitive Judgment (2002) (Cambridge University Press, New York) 49–81Crossref, Google Scholar
• Keeney RL. Value-Focused Thinking (1992) (Harvard University Press, Boston) Google Scholar
• Keeney RL. Common mistakes in making value trade-offs. Oper. Res. (2002) 50(6):935–945Link, Google Scholar
• Keeney RL, Gregory RS. Selecting attributes to measure the achievement of objectives. Oper. Res. (2005) 53(1):1–11Link, Google Scholar
• Keeney RL, Raiffa H. Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Tradeoffs (1976) (John Wiley and Sons, New York) Google Scholar
• Keeney RL, Renn O, von Winterfeldt D. Structuring West Germany's energy objectives. Energy Policy (1987) 15(4):352–362Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kleinmuntz DN, Hogarth RM. Decomposition and the control of error in decision analytic models. Insights in Decision Making: A Tribute to Hillel J. Einhorn (1990) (University of Chicago Press, Chicago) 107–126Google Scholar
• Lichtenstein S, Slovic P. The Construction of Preference (2006) (Cambridge University Press, New York) Crossref, Google Scholar
• North Carolina Coastal Federation North Carolina estuary habitat restoration: Coastal restoration at work. (2009) . Accessed December 4, 2012, http://www.nccoast.org/Northeast/pdfs/NOAA-stimulus-Fact-Sheet.pdfGoogle Scholar
• North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries North Carolina oyster fishery management plan amendment II. (2007) . Division of Marine Fisheries, North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Morehead City, NCGoogle Scholar
• Payne JW, Bettman JR, Johnson EA. The Adaptive Decision Maker (1993) (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK) Crossref, Google Scholar
• Payne JW, Bettman JR, Schkade DA. Measuring constructed preferences: Towards a building code. J. Risk Uncertainty (1999) 19(1–3):243–270Crossref, Google Scholar
• Peterson CH, Grabowski JH, Powers SP. Estimated enhancement of fish production resulting from restoring oyster reef habitat: Quantitative valuation. Marine Ecology Progress Ser. (2003) 264:249–264Crossref, Google Scholar
• Schoemaker PJH, Waid CC. An experimental comparison of different approaches to determining weights in additive utility models. Management Sci. (1982) 28(2):182–196Link, Google Scholar
• Slovic P, Griffin D, Tversky A, Hogarth RM. Compatibility effects in judgment and choice. Insights in Decision Making: A Tribute to Hillel J. Einhorn (1990) (University of Chicago Press, Chicago) 5–27Google Scholar
• Tversky A, Sattath S, Slovic P. Contingent weighting in judgment and choice. Psych. Rev. (1988) 95(3):371–384Crossref, Google Scholar
• von Winterfeldt D, Edwards W. Decision Analysis and Behavioral Research (1986) (Cambridge University Press, New York) Google Scholar
• Weber M, Eisenführ F, von Winterfeldt D. The effects of splitting attributes on weights in multiattribute utility measurement. Management Sci. (1988) 34(4):431–445Link, Google Scholar