Judging relative importance: Direct rating and point allocation are not equivalent

Doyle, John R., Green, R. H. and Bottomley, Paul Andrew ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8131-6768 1997. Judging relative importance: Direct rating and point allocation are not equivalent. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 70 (1) , pp. 65-72. 10.1006/obhd.1997.2694

Full text not available from this repository.

Abstract

In this series of experiments we investigate two commonly used methods of assigning numerical values (i.e., decision weights) to attributes in order to signify their perceived relative importance. The two methods are to ask people to directly rate each of the attributes in turn (Rating), or to allocate a budget of points (typically 100 points) to the attributes (Point Allocation or PA). These procedures may seem to be minor variants of one another, yet they produce very different profiles of decision weights. The differences are predicted by a simple, idealized model of weighting, from which Rating and PA, in different ways, exhibit consistent elicitation-dependent bias.

Item Type:	Article
Date Type:	Publication
Status:	Published
Schools:	Business (Including Economics)
Subjects:	H Social Sciences > H Social Sciences (General) Q Science > QA Mathematics > QA75 Electronic computers. Computer science
Publisher:	Elsevier
ISSN:	0749-5978
Last Modified:	21 Oct 2022 09:48
URI:	https://orca.cardiff.ac.uk/id/eprint/37806

Citation Data

Cited 94 times in Scopus. View in Scopus. Powered By Scopus® Data

Actions (repository staff only)

Edit Item