Abstract
The investigation of a decision maker’s systematic deviation from rational behavior (bias) is of growing interest in descriptively oriented decision-analysis. Some of this work also challenges assumptions in prescriptive decision theory, i. e. it might not be easy to elicit a uniquely defined correct multi-attribute utility or value function. We show a bias also exists in the assessment of attribute weights. Our main finding is that the weight assigned to an attribute tends to be smaller than the sum of the weights of the corresponding subattributes.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Literature
Bell, D. E., “Regret in Decision Making under Uncertainty”, Operations Research, 30 (1982), 961–981
Edwards, W., “Social Utilities”, The Engineering Economist, Summer Symposium Series, 6 (1971), 119–129
Eliashberg, J. and J. R. Hauser, “A Measurement Error Approach for Modeling Consumer Risk Preference”, Management Science, 31 (1985), 1–25
Fishburn, P. C., “SSB Utility Theory: An Economic Perspective”, Mathematical Social Sciences, 8 (1984), 63–94
Hershey, J. C. and P. J. H. Schoemaker, “Probability Versus Certainty Equivalence Methods in Utility Measurement: Are They Equivalent?”, Management Science, 31 (1985), 1213–1231
Hershey, J. C., H. C. Kunreuther and P. J. H. Schoemaker, “Sources of Bias in Assessment Procedure for Utility Functions”, Management Science, 28 (1982), 936–954
Kahneman, D. and A. Tversky, “Choices, Values and Frames”, American Psychologist, 39 (1984), 341–350
Keller, L. R. “The Effects of Problem Representation on the Sure-Thing and Substitution Principles”, Management Science, 31 (1985), 738–751
Machina, M. J., “‘Expected Utility’ Analysis Without the Independence Axiom”, Econometrica, 50 (1982), 277–323
McCord, M. and R. de Neufville, “‘Lottery Equivalents’: Reduction of the Certainty Effect Problem in Utility Assessment”, Management Science, 32 (1986), 56–60
von Nitzsch, R. and M. Weber, “Die verläßliche Bestimmung von Nutzenfunktionen”, Working-Paper No. 86/02, Institut für Wirtschaftswissenschaften, RWTH Aachen, Aachen 1986
Schoemaker, P. J. H., Experiments on Decisions Under Risk. The Expected Utility Hypotheses, Boston 1980
Srinivasan, V. and A. D. Shocker, “Linear Programming Techniques for Multidimensional Analysis of Preferences”, Psychometrika, 38 (1973), 337–369
Srinivasan, V., A. K. Jain and N. K. Malhotra, “Improving Predictive Power of Conjoint Analysis by Constrained Parameter Estimation”, Journal of Marketing Research, 20 (1983), 433–438
Tversky, A. and D. Kahneman, “Rational Choice and the Framing of Decisions”, Paper Presented at the Conference on the Behavioral Foundations of Economic Theory, University of Chicago, October 13–15, 1985
Weber, M. “Decision Making with Incomplete Information”, to appear in European Journal of Operational Research, 1986
Weber, M., F. Eisenführ and D. von Winterfeldt, “The Effect of Splitting Attributes in Multiattribute Utility Models”, Working-Paper No. 85/09, Institut für Wirtschaftswissenschaften, RWTH Aachen, Aachen 1986
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1987 Springer-Verlag Berlin HeidelBerg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Weber, M., Eisenführ, F., von Winterfeldt, D. (1987). Bias in Assessment of Attribute Weights. In: Sawaragi, Y., Inoue, K., Nakayama, H. (eds) Toward Interactive and Intelligent Decision Support Systems. Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems, vol 286. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-46609-0_33
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-46609-0_33
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-540-17719-7
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-46609-0
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive