Anchoring Bias in Value Function Elicitation Within Multiattribute Value Theory

References

• Adame BJ (2016) Training in the mitigation of anchoring bias: A test of the consider-the-opposite strategy. Learn. Motivation 53(2016):36–48.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Anthes R, Maier M, Ackerman S, Atlas R, Callahan L, Dittberner G, Yoe J, et al. (2019) Developing priority observational requirements from space using multi-attribute utility theory. Bull. Amer. Meteorological Soc. 100(9):1753–1774.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ariely D (2008) Predictably Irrational: The Hidden Forces That Shape Our Decisions (Harper Collins, NY).Google Scholar
• Barber BM, Odean T (2001) Boys will be boys: Gender, overconfidence, and common stock investment. Quart. J. Econom. 116(1):261–292.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bazerman MH, Moore DA (2012) Judgment in Managerial Decision Making (John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ).Google Scholar
• Beinat E (1997) Value Functions for Environmental Management (Springer, Dordrecht, Netherlands).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Belton V, Stewart T (2012) Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis: An Integrated Approach (Springer, New York).Google Scholar
• Brewer NT, Chapman GB, Schwartz JA, Bergus GR (2007) The influence of irrelevant anchors on the judgments and choices of doctors and patients. Medical Decision Making 27(2):203–211.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Buchanan JT, Corner J (1997) The effects of anchoring in interactive MCDM solution methods. Comput. Oper. Res. 24(10):907–918.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bushong B, Gagnon-Bartsch T (2024) Failures in forecasting: An experiment on interpersonal projection bias. Management Sci. 70(12):8735–8752.Link, Google Scholar
• Camerer CF, Hogarth RM (1999) The effects of financial incentives in experiments: A review and capital-labor-production framework. J. Risk Uncertainty 19(1):7–42. Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chapman GB, Johnson EJ (2002) Incorporating the irrelevant: Anchors in judgments of belief and value. Heuristics and Biases: The Psychology of Intuitive Judgment (Cambridge University Press, New York), 120–138.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Couper MP (2000) Web surveys: A review of issues and approaches. Public Opinion Quart. 64(4):464–494.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Creusen ME (2010) The importance of product aspects in choice: The influence of demographic characteristics. J. Consumer Marketing 27(1):26–34.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dillman DA, Smyth JD, Christian LM (2014) Internet, Phone, Mail, and Mixed-Mode Surveys: The Tailored Design Method (John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dyer JS, Sarin RK (1979) Measurable multiattribute value functions. Oper. Res. 27(4):810–822.Link, Google Scholar
• Englich B, Mussweiler T, Strack F (2006) Playing dice with criminal sentences: The influence of irrelevant anchors on experts’ judicial decision making. Personality Soc. Psych. Bull. 32(2):188–200.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Epley N, Gilovich T (2005) When effortful thinking influences judgmental anchoring: Differential effects of forewarning and incentives on self-generated and externally provided anchors. J. Behav. Decision Making 18(3):199–212.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Eurostat (2023) Housing in Europe. Accessed October 12, 2023, https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/interactive-publications/housing-2023.Google Scholar
• Fasolo B, Heard C, Scopelliti I (2024) Mitigating cognitive bias to improve organizational decisions: An integrative review, framework, and research agenda. J. Management 51(6):2182–2211.Google Scholar
• Ferretti V (2016) From stakeholders analysis to cognitive mapping and multi-attribute value theory: An integrated approach for policy support. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 253(2):524–541.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fischhoff B (1991) Value elicitation: Is there anything in there? Amer. Psychologist 46(8):835.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fishburn PC (1967) Methods of estimating additive utilities. Management Sci. 13(7):435–453.Link, Google Scholar
• Furnham A, Boo HC (2011) A literature review of the anchoring effect. J. Socio-Econom. 40(1):35–42.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Galinsky AD, Mussweiler T (2001) First offers as anchors: The role of perspective-taking and negotiator focus. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 81(4):657–669.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gavirneni S, Xia Y (2009) Anchor selection and group dynamics in newsvendor decisions—A note. Decision Anal. 6(2):87–97.Link, Google Scholar
• Hammer CS (2011) The importance of participant demographics. Amer. J. Speech-Language Pathology 20(4):261.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hascher J, Desai N, Krajbich I (2021) Incentivized and non-incentivized liking ratings outperform willingness-to-pay in predicting choice. Judgment Decision Making 16(6):1464–1484.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hertwig R, Ortmann A (2001) Experimental practices in economics: A methodological challenge for psychologists? Behav. Brain Sci. 24(3):383–403.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Höfer T, Madlener R (2020) A participatory stakeholder process for evaluating sustainable energy transition scenarios. Energy Policy 139:111277.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hostmann M, Bernauer T, Mosler HJ, Reichert P, Truffer B (2005) Multi‐attribute value theory as a framework for conflict resolution in river rehabilitation. J. Multi‐Criteria Decision Anal. 13(2–3):91–102.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Jacobi SK, Hobbs BF (2007) Quantifying and mitigating the splitting bias and other value tree-induced weighting biases. Decision Anal. 4(4):194–210.Link, Google Scholar
• Kahneman D (2011) Thinking, Fast and Slow (Farrar, Straus and Giroux, New York).Google Scholar
• Keeney RL (1974) Multiplicative utility functions. Oper. Res. 22(1):22–34.Link, Google Scholar
• Keeney RL (2002) Common mistakes in making value trade-offs. Oper. Res. 50(6):935–945.Link, Google Scholar
• Keeney RL (2004) Making better decision makers. Decision Anal. 1(4):193–204.Link, Google Scholar
• Keeney RL (2009) Value-Focused Thinking: A Path to Creative Decisionmaking (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA).Google Scholar
• Keeney RL, Raiffa H (1976) Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Trade-Offs (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK).Google Scholar
• Kim S-H, Tong J (2024) Admission control bias and path-dependent feedback under diagnosis uncertainty. Manufacturing Service Oper. Management 26(1):117–136.Link, Google Scholar
• Kirkwood CW, Sarin RK (1980) Preference conditions for multiattribute value functions. Oper. Res. 28(1):225–232.Link, Google Scholar
• Labijak-Kowalska A, Kadziński M, Spychała I, Dias LC, Fiallos J, Patrick J, Michalowski W, Farion K (2023) Performance evaluation of emergency department physicians using robust value-based additive efficiency model. Internat. Trans. Oper. Res. 30(1):503–544.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lilienfeld SO, Ammirati R, Landfield K (2009) Giving debiasing away: Can psychological research on correcting cognitive errors promote human welfare? Perspect. Psych. Sci. 4(4):390–398.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lord CG, Lepper MR, Preston E (1984) Considering the opposite: A corrective strategy for social judgment. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 47(6):1231–1243.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ma-Kellams C (2020) Cultural variation and similarities in cognitive thinking styles versus judgment biases: A review of environmental factors and evolutionary forces. Rev. General Psych. 24(3):238–253.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Montibeller G, von Winterfeldt D (2015) Cognitive and motivational biases in decision and risk analysis. Risk Anal. 35(7):1230–1251.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Montibeller G, von Winterfeldt D (2024) Behavioral decision research: Descriptive and prescriptive perspectives. Federspiel FM, Montibeller G, Seifert M, eds. Behavioral Decision Analysis (Springer, Cham, Switzerland), 15–40.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mussweiler T, Strack F (1999) Hypothesis-consistent testing and semantic priming in the anchoring paradigm: A selective accessibility model. J. Experiment. Soc. Psych. 35(2):136–164.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mussweiler T, Strack F, Pfeiffer T (2000) Overcoming the inevitable anchoring effect: Considering the opposite compensates for selective accessibility. Personality Soc. Psych. Bull. 26(9):1142–1150.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Norenzayan A, Choi I, Peng K (2007) Perception and cognition. Handbook of Cultural Psychology (The Guilford Press, New York), 569–594.Google Scholar
• Palan S, Schitter C (2018) Prolific.ac—A subject pool for online experiments. J. Behav. Experiment. Finance 17:22–27.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Payne JW, Bettman JR, Johnson EJ (1992) Behavioral decision research: A constructive processing perspective. Annu. Rev. Psych. 43(1):87–131.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Prava VR, Clemen RT, Hobbs BF, Kenney MA (2016) Partition dependence and carryover biases in subjective probability assessment surveys for continuous variables: Model-based estimation and correction. Decision Anal. 13(1):51–67.Link, Google Scholar
• Redmond LS, Mokhtarian PL (2001) The positive utility of the commute: Modeling ideal commute time and relative desired commute amount. Transportation 28(2):179–205. Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rezaei J (2015) Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method. Omega 53:49–57.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rezaei J (2021) Anchoring bias in eliciting attribute weights and values in multi-attribute decision-making. J. Decision Systems 30(1):72–96.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rezaei J, Arab A, Mehregan M (2024) Analyzing anchoring bias in attribute weight elicitation of smart, swing, and best-worst method. Internat. Trans. Oper. Res. 31(2):918–948.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Shadish W, Cook T, Campbell DT (2002) Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Generalized Causal Inference (Houghton Mifflin, Boston).Google Scholar
• Singer E, Ye C (2013) The use and effects of incentives in surveys. Ann. Amer. Acad. Polit, Soc. Sci. 645(1):112–141.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Slovic P (1995) The construction of preference. Amer. Psychologist 50(5):364–371.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Slovic P, Griffin D, Tversky A (1990) Compatibility effects in judgment and choice. Insights in decision making: A tribute to Hillel J. Einhorn, 5-27 (The University of Chicago Press, Chicago).Google Scholar
• Smith JE, Dyer JS (2021) On (measurable) multiattribute value functions: An expository argument. Decision Anal. 18(4):247–256.Link, Google Scholar
• Statistics Netherlands (2024) Centraal Bureau Voor de Statistiek. Accessed July 8, 2024, https://www.cbs.nl/.Google Scholar
• Thaler RH, Sunstein CR (2008) Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness (Yale University Press, New Haven, CT).Google Scholar
• Tversky A, Kahneman D (1974) Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science 185(4157):1124–1131.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tversky A, Kahneman D (1981) The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science 211(4481):453–458.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wansink B, Kent RJ, Hoch SJ (1998) An anchoring and adjustment model of purchase quantity decisions. J. Marketing Res. 35(1):71–81.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Watson SR, Buede DM (1987) Decision Synthesis: The Principles and Practice of Decision Analysis (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK).Google Scholar
• Wilson TD, Houston CE, Etling KM, Brekke N (1996) A new look at anchoring effects: Basic anchoring and its antecedents. J. Experiment. Psych. General 125(4):387–402.Crossref, Google Scholar