Show simple item record

Decisional Conflict and User Acceptance of Multicriteria Decision-Making Aids *

dc.contributor.authorKottemann, Jeffrey E.en_US
dc.contributor.authorDavis, Fred D.en_US
dc.date.accessioned2010-06-01T20:20:39Z
dc.date.available2010-06-01T20:20:39Z
dc.date.issued1991-09en_US
dc.identifier.citationKottemann, Jeffrey E.; Davis, Fred D. (1991). "Decisional Conflict and User Acceptance of Multicriteria Decision-Making Aids * ." Decision Sciences 22(4): 918-926. <http://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/73461>en_US
dc.identifier.issn0011-7315en_US
dc.identifier.issn1540-5915en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/73461
dc.description.abstractDespite the development of increasingly sophisticated and refined multicriteria decision-making (MCDM) methods, an examination of the experimental evidence indicates that users most often prefer relatively unsophisticated methods. In this paper, we synthesize theories and empirical findings from the psychology of judgment and choice to provide a new theoretical explanation for such user preferences. Our argument centers on the assertion that the MCDM method preferred by decision makers is a function of the degree to which the method tends to introduce decisional conflict. The model we develop relates response mode, decision strategy, and the salience of decisional conflict to user preferences among decision aids. We then show that the model is consistent with empirical results in MCDM studies. Next, the role of decisional conflict in problem formulation aids is briefly discussed. Finally, we outline future research needed to thoroughly test the theoretical mechanisms we have proposed.en_US
dc.format.extent623760 bytes
dc.format.extent3109 bytes
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdf
dc.format.mimetypetext/plain
dc.publisherBlackwell Publishing Ltden_US
dc.rights1991 by the American Institute for Decision Sciencesen_US
dc.subject.otherDecision Analysisen_US
dc.subject.otherDecision Processesen_US
dc.subject.otherDecision Support Systemsen_US
dc.subject.otherAnd Human Information Processingen_US
dc.titleDecisional Conflict and User Acceptance of Multicriteria Decision-Making Aids *en_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.subject.hlbsecondlevelComputer Scienceen_US
dc.subject.hlbsecondlevelMathematicsen_US
dc.subject.hlbtoplevelScienceen_US
dc.description.peerreviewedPeer Revieweden_US
dc.contributor.affiliationumGraduate School of Business Administration, The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1234en_US
dc.description.bitstreamurlhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/73461/1/j.1540-5915.1991.tb00371.x.pdf
dc.identifier.doi10.1111/j.1540-5915.1991.tb00371.xen_US
dc.identifier.sourceDecision Sciencesen_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceAbelson, R. P., & Levi, A. Decision making and decision theory. In G. Linsay & E. Aronson ( Eds. ), The handbook of social psychology ( 3rd ed. ). New York: Random House, 1985.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceAbualsamh, R. A., Carlin, B., & McDaniel, R. R., Jr. Problem structuring heuristics in strategic decision making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 1990, 45 159 – 174.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceAldelbratt, T., & Montgomery, H. Attractiveness of decision rules. Acta Psychologica, 1980, 45 177 – 185.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceAllwood, C. M., & Montgomery, H. Response selection strategies and realism of confidence judgments. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 1987, 39 365 – 383.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBadinelli, R. D., & Baker, J. R. Multiple attribute decision making with inexact value-function assessment. Decision Sciences, 1990, 21 ( 2 ) 318 – 336.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBenayoun, R., de Montgolfier, J., Tergny, J., & Laritchev, O. Linear programming with multiple objective functions: STEP-method (STEM). Mathematical Programming, 1971, 1 ( 3 ) 366 – 375.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBillings, R. S., & Scherer, L. L. The effects of response mode and importance on decision-making strategies: Judgement versus choice. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 1988, 41 1 – 19.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBrockhoff, K. Experimental test of MCDM algorithms in a modular approach. European Journal of Operations Research, 1985, 22 159 – 166.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBuchanan, J. T., & Daellenbach, H. G. A comparative evaluation of interactive solution methods for multiple objective decision models. European Journal of Operations Research, 1987, 24 353 – 359.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceCats-Baril, W. L., & Huber, G. P. Decision support systems for ill-structured problems: An empirical study. Decision Sciences, 1987, 18 350 – 372.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceDavis, F. D. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. Management Information Systems Quarterly, 1989, 13 ( 3 ) 319 – 339.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceDavis, F. D., Bagozzi, R., & Warshaw, P. User acceptance of computer technology: A comparison of two theoretical models. Management Science, 1989, 35 982 – 1003.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceEinhorn, H. J., & Hogarth, R. M. Behavioral decision theory: Processes of judgment and choice. Annual Review of Psychology, 1981, 32 53 – 88.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceFischhoff, B., Slovic, P., & Lichtenstein, S. Knowing with certainty: The appropriateness of extreme confidence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 1977, 3 552 – 564.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGeoffrion, A. M., Dyer, J. S., & Feinberg, A. An interactive approach for multicriterion optimization, with an application to the operation of an academic department. Management Science, 1972, 19 ( 4 ) 357 – 368.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGolden, B. L., Hevner, A., & Power, D. Decision insight systems for microcomputers: A critical evaluation. Computers and Operations Research, 1986, 13 ( 2/3 ), 287 – 300.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHaimes, Y. Y., & Hall, W. A. Multiobjectives in water resources systems analysis: The surrogate worth tradeoff methods. Water Resources Research, 1974, 10 615 – 624.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHumphreys, P., & McFadden, W. Experiences with MAUD: Aiding decision structuring versus bootstrapping the decision maker. Acta Psychologica, 1980, 45 51 – 69.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceJanis, I. L., & Mann, L. Decision making: A psychological analysis of conflict, choice, and commitment. New York: The Free Press, 1977.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceKahneman, D., & Tversky, A. On the psychology of prediction. Psychological Review, 1973, 80 ( 4 ) 237 – 251.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceKottemann, J. E., & Remus, W. E. Evidence and principles of functional and dysfunctional DSS. International Journal of Management Science (Omega), 1987, 15 ( 2 ) 135 – 144.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceNarasimhan, R., & Vickery, S. K. An experimental evaluation of articulation of preferences in multiple criterion decision-making (MCDM) methods. Decision Sciences, 1988, 19 880 – 888.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferencePayne, J. Contingent decision behavior. Psychological Bulletin, 1982, 92 382 – 402.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferencePosner, M. E., & Wu, C. T. Linear max-min programming. Mathematical Programming, 1981, 20 166 – 172.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceRohrmann, B. Evaluating the usefulness of decision aids: A methodological perspective. In B. Brehmer, H. Jungermann, P. Lourens & G. Sevon ( Eds. ), New directions in research on decision making. New York: North-Holland, 1986.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSaaty, T. L. The analytical hierarchy process. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1980.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSchwenk, C. R. Conflict in organizational decision making: An exploratory study of its effects in for-profit and not-for-profit organizations. Management Science, 1990, 36 ( 4 ) 436 – 448.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSteuer, R. E. An interactive multiple objective linear programming procedure. In M.K. Starr & M. Zeleny ( Eds. ), Multiple criteria decision making. Amsterdam: North-Holland, 1977.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSteuer, R. E., & Choo, E. U. An interactive weighted Tehebycheff procedure for multiple objective programming. Mathematical Programming, 1983, 26 326 – 344.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceTetlock, P. E. Accountability: The neglected social context of judgment and choice. Research in Organizational Behavior, 1985, 7 297 – 332.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceTversky, A., Sattath, S., & Slovic, P. Contingent weighting in judgment and choice. Psychological Review, 1988, 95 ( 3 ) 371 – 384.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceWallenius, J. Comparative evaluation of some interactive approaches to multicriterion optimization. Management Science, 1975, 21 ( 12 ) 1387 – 1396.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceWright, P. Consumer choice strategies: Simplifying vs. optimizing. Journal of Marketing Research, 1975, 12 60 – 67.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceZakay, D. Post-decisional confidence and conflict experienced in a choice process. Acta Psychologica, 1985, 58 75 – 80.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceZionts, S. Multiple criteria mathematical programming: An overview and several approaches. In G. Fandel & J. Spronk ( Eds. ), Multiple criteria decision methods and applications. Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag, 1985.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceZionts, S., & Wallenius, J. An interactive programming method for solving the multiple criteria problem. Management Science, 1976, 22 652 – 663.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceZionts, S., & Wallenius, J. An interactive multiple objective linear programming method for a class of underlying nonlinear utility functions. Management Science, 1983, 29 ( 5 ) 519 – 529.en_US
dc.owningcollnameInterdisciplinary and Peer-Reviewed


Files in this item

Show simple item record

Remediation of Harmful Language

The University of Michigan Library aims to describe library materials in a way that respects the people and communities who create, use, and are represented in our collections. Report harmful or offensive language in catalog records, finding aids, or elsewhere in our collections anonymously through our metadata feedback form. More information at Remediation of Harmful Language.

Accessibility

If you are unable to use this file in its current format, please select the Contact Us link and we can modify it to make it more accessible to you.