Using a Bayesian Approach to Quantify Scale Compatibility Bias

References

• Barron F. H., Barrett B. E. Decision quality using ranked attribute weights. Management Sci. (1996) 42(11):1515–1523Link, Google Scholar
• Bleichrodt H., Pinto J. L., Wakker P. P. Making descriptive use of prospect theory to improve the prescriptive use of expected utility. Management Sci. (2001) 47(11):1498–1514Link, 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
• Box G. E. P., Tiao G.Bayesian Inference in Statistical Analysis (1973) (Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA) Google Scholar
• Crawford G., Williams C. A note on the analysis of subjective judgment matrices. J. Math. Psych. (1985) 29:387–405Crossref, Google Scholar
• de Jong P. A statistical approach to Saaty's scaling method for priorities. J. Math. Psych. (1984) 28:467–478Crossref, Google Scholar
• Delquie P. Inconsistent tradeoffs between attributes: New evidence in preference assessment biases. Management Sci. (1993) 39(11):1382–1395Link, Google Scholar
• Delquie P. “Bi-matching”: A new preference assessment method to reduce compatibility effects. Management Sci. (1997) 43(5):640–658Link, Google Scholar
• Edwards W., Barron F. H. SMARTS and SMARTER: Improved simple methods for multiattribute utility measurement. Organ. Behavior Human Decision Processes (1994) 60(3):306–325Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fischer G. W. Range sensitivity of attribute weights in multiattribute value models. Organ. Behavior Human Decision Processes (1995) 62(3):252–266Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fischer G. W., 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
• Fischer G. W., Jia J., Luce M. F. Attribute conflict and preference uncertainty: The RandMAU model. Management Sci. (2000) 46(5):669–684Link, Google Scholar
• Fischoff B., Slovic P., Lichtenstein S.. Knowing what you want: Measuring labile values. Cognitive Processes in Choice and Decision Behavior (1980) (Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ) 117–141Google Scholar
• Fishburn P. C. Methods of estimating additive utilities. Management Sci. (1967) 13(7):435–453Link, Google Scholar
• Gelman A., Carlin J. B., Stern H. S., Rubin D. B.Bayesian Data Analysis (1995) (Chapman and Hall, London, U.K.) Crossref, Google Scholar
• Genest C., Rivest L. P. A statistical look at Saaty's method of estimating pairwise preferences expressed on a ratio scale. J. Math. Psych. (1994) 38:477–496Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hobbs B. F., Horn G. T. F. 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 B. F., Meier P.Energy Decisions and the Environment: A Guide to the Use of Multicriteria Methods (2000) (Kluwer, Boston, MA) Crossref, Google Scholar
• Jia J., Fischer G. W., Dyer J. Attribute weighting methods and decision quality in the presence of response error: A simulation study. J. Behavioral Decision Making (1998) 11:85–105Crossref, Google Scholar
• Keeney R. L., Raiffa H.Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Tradeoffs (1976) (John Wiley and Sons, New York) Google Scholar
• Kleinmuntz D. N., Hogarth R. M. 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, IL) 107–126Google Scholar
• Koonce J. F., Locci A. B., Knight R. L., Taylor W. W., Ferreri C. P. Contribution of fishery management in walleye and yellow perch populations of Lake Erie. Great Lakes Fisheries Policy and Management: A Binational Perspective (1999) (Michigan State University Press, East Lansing, MI) 397–416Google Scholar
• Morgan M. G., Henrion M.Uncertainty: A Guide to Dealing with Uncertainty in Quantitative Risk and Policy Analysis (1990) (Cambridge University Press, New York) Crossref, Google Scholar
• Payne J. W., Bettman J. R., Schkade D. A. Measuring constructed preferences: Towards a building code. J. Risk Uncertainty (1999) 19(1–3):243–270Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ravinder H. V., Kleinmuntz D. N. Random error in additive decompositions of multiattribute utility. J. Behavioral Decision Making (1991) 4:83–97Crossref, Google Scholar
• Saaty T. L.The Analytic Hierarchy Process (1980) (McGraw-Hill, New York) Google Scholar
• Schoemaker P. J. H., Waid C. C. An experimental comparison of different approaches to determining weights in additive utility models. Management Sci. (1982) 28(2):182–195Link, Google Scholar
• Slovic P. The construction of preference. Amer. Psych. (1995) 50(5):364–371Crossref, Google Scholar
• Slovic P., Griffin D., Tversky A., Hogarth R. M. Compatibility effects in judgment and choice. Insights in Decision Making: A Tribute to Hillel J. Einhorn (1990) (University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL) 5–27Google Scholar
• Slovic P., Sattah S., Tversky A. Contingent weighting in judgment and choice. Psych. Rev. (1988) 95:371–384Crossref, Google Scholar
• von Winterfeldt D., Edwards W.Decision Analysis and Behavioral Research (1986) (Cambridge University Press, New York) Google Scholar