Aggregation of Opinions and Preferences in Decision Problems

  • M. Elisabeth Paté-Cornell
Part of the Advances in Risk Analysis book series (AIRA, volume 2)


The analyst who wants more data than are available through statistics, may decide to use the opinion of experts; he then faces several questions that will affect the quality of the information that he will obtain: To whom to go for valuable insights? How to present his questions? Should he use iterative techniques? Should he avoid or create experts’ interaction? And finally, how should he aggregate the data that he gathered from them?


Decision Maker Group Decision Collective Decision Opinion Aggregation Delphi Technique 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    K. J. Arrow, “Social Choice and Individual Values,” John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York (1951).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    B. Colding, L. V. Colwell, and D. N. Smith, “Delphi Forecasts of Manufacturing Technologies,” I.F.S. (Publications), Bedford, England (1979).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    J. C. Harsanyi, “Cardinal Welfare, Individualistic Ethics, and Interpersonal Comparison of Utility,” Journal of Political Economy, No. 63, pp. 309–321 (1955).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    R. L. Keeney and H. Raiffa, “Decision with Multiple Objectives: Prefernces and Trade Offs,” John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York (1976).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    R. L. Keeney, L. R. Keller, R. K. Sarin, A. Sicherman, and R. L. Winkler, “Analysis of Alternative National Ambient Carbon Monoxide Standards,” Report to the USEPA, Woodward Clyde Consultants, San Francisco, California (May 1982).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    H. Linstone and M. Turoff, The Delphi Method: Techniques and Applications, Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., Reading, Massachusetts (1975).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    P. A. Morris, “Decision Analysis Experts Use,” Management Science, Vol. 20, pp. 1233-1241.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    A. Mosleh and G. Apostolakis, “Bayesian Models for Expert Opinions,” Unpublished Manuscripts, School of Engineering and Applied Sciences, University of California, Los Angeles, California (1982).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    D. Okrent, “A Survey of Expert Opinion on Low Probability Earthquakes,” University of California at Los Angeles, School of Engineering and Applied Sciences, Report UCLA-ENG-7515, Los Angeles, California (February 1975).Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    M. E. Paté, “Acceptable Decision Processes and Acceptable Risks in Public Sector Regulations,” to appear in the IEEE Transactions for Man, Systems, and Cybernetics (1982).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    A. Tversky and D. Kahneman, “Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases,” Science, Vol. 185, pp. 1124–1131(September 27, 1974).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    R. L. Winkler, “The Consensus of Subjective Probability Distributions,” Managment Science, Vol. 25, pp. 61–75 (1968).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1984

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. Elisabeth Paté-Cornell
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Industrial Engineering and Engineering ManagementStanford UniversityStanfordUSA

Personalised recommendations