Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

A descriptive multi-attribute utility model for everyday decisions

  • Published:
Theory and Decision Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We propose a descriptive version of the classical multi-attribute utility model; to that end, we add a new parameter, momentary salience, to the customary formulation. The addition of this parameter allows the theory to accommodate changes in the decision maker’s mood and circumstances, as the saliencies of anticipated consequences are driven by concerns of the moment. By allowing for the number of consequences given attention at the moment of decision to vary, the new model mutes the criticism that SEU models call for an omniscient decision maker. Use of the model is illustrated with a large-scale longitudinal study showing that adolescent smokers have higher utility for smoking than nonsmokers. We also propose to use the model hierarchically to describe everyday decisions that people deal with repeatedly. Big decisions, which set policy, guide a host of nested little decisions, which in turn lead to action. For a little decision, one of the options will be consistent with the policy, and will inherit its high utility. Accordingly, most little decisions will be made quickly and will follow the policy. However, people do sometimes decide to violate their own policies, and we describe how these lapses can lead to collapse of the policy.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ajzen I. (1991) The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50: 179–211

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson N.H., Shanteau J.C. (1970) Information integration in risky decision making. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 84: 441–451

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Busemeyer J.R., Townsend J.T. (1993) Decision field theory: A dynamic-cognitive approach to decision making in an uncertain environment. Psychological Review, 100: 432–459

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chapman G.B., Niedermayer L.Y. (2001) What counts as a decision? Predictors of perceived decision making. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 8: 615–621

    Google Scholar 

  • Coombs C.H., Bezembinder T.G., Goode F.M. (1967) Testing expectation theories of decision making without measuring utility or subjective probability. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 4: 72–103

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cosmides L., Tooby J. (1994) Better than rational: Evolutionary psychology and the invisible hand. American Economic Review (Papers and Proceedings), 84: 327–332

    Google Scholar 

  • Darwin C.R. (1881) The formation of vegetable mould through the action of worms, with observations on their habits. John Murray, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Devine C.M., Nelson J.A., Chin N., Dozier A., Fernandez I.D. (2007) “Pizza is cheaper than salad”: Assessing workers’ views for an environmental food intervention. Obesity, 15: 57S–68S

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dill L.M., Fraser A.H.G. (1997) The worm re-turns: Hiding behavior of a tube-dwelling marine polychaete, Serpula vermicularis. Behavior Ecology, 8: 186–193

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edwards W. (1954) The theory of decision making. Psychological Bulletin, 51: 380–417

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edwards W. (1961) Behavioral decision theory. Annual Review of Psychology, 12: 473–498

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edwards W. (1962) Subjective probabilities inferred from decisions. Psychological Review, 69: 109–135

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edwards W. (1973) Divide and conquer: How to use likelihood and value judgments in decision making. In: Miles R.F. (eds) Systems concepts: Lectures on contemporary approaches to systems. Wiley, New York, pp 87–110

    Google Scholar 

  • Edwards W., Barron F.H. (1994) SMARTS and SMARTER: Improved simple methods for multiattribute utility measurement. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 60: 306–325

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edwards W., Fasolo B. (2001) Decision technology. Annual Review of Psychology, 52: 581–606

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garcia J., Hankins W.G., Rusiniak K.W. (1974) Behavioral regulation of the milieu interne in man and rat. Science, 185: 824–831

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gigerenzer G., Todd P.M., & the ABC Research Group (1999). Simple heuristics that make us smart. New York: Oxford University Press.

  • Hill D., Weiss D.J., Walker D.L., Jolley D. (1988) Long-term evaluation of controlled smoking as a treatment outcome. British Journal of Addiction, 83: 203–207

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoffman P. (1960) The paramorphic representation of clinical judgment. Psychological Bulletin, 57: 116–131

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Howard R. (1992) In praise of the old time religion. In: Edwards W.(eds) Utility theories: Measurements and applications. Kluwer, Boston, pp 27–56

    Google Scholar 

  • Janis I.L., Mann L. (1977) Decision making. The Free Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Jeffery R.W., Wing R.R., Thorson C., Burton L.R., Raether C., Harvey J., Mullen M. (1993) Strengthening behavioral interventions for weight loss: A randomized trial of food provision and monetary incentives. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 61: 1038–1045

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman D., Tversky A. (1984) Choices, values, and frames. American Psychologist, 39: 341–350

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keeney R.L., Raiffa H. (1976) Decisions with multiple objectives. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Loewenstein G. (2005) Hot-cold empathy gaps and medical decision making. Health Psychology, 24: S49–S56

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loewenstein, G., Read, D., Baumeister, R.F. (eds) (2003) Time and decision. Russell Sage Foundation, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Luce R.D. (1992) Where does subjective expected utility fail descriptively?. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 5: 5–27

    Google Scholar 

  • Maddock J. (2004) The relationship between obesity and the prevalence of fast food restaurants: State-level analysis. American Journal of Health Promotion, 19: 137–143

    Google Scholar 

  • Mann T., Tomiyama A.J., Westling E., Lew A.-M., Samuels B., Chatman J. (2007) Medicare’s search for effective obesity treatments. American Psychologist, 62: 220–233

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marlatt, G.A., Donovan, D.M. (eds) (2005) Relapse prevention (2nd ed). Guilford Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Mellers B.A., McGraw A.P. (2001) Anticipated emotions as guides to choice. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 10: 210–214

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mellers B., Schwartz A., Ritov I. (1999) Emotion-based choice. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 128: 332–345

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mosteller F., Nogee P. (1951) An experimental measure of utility. Journal of Political Economy, 59: 371–404

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pennings T.J. (2003) Do dogs know calculus?. College Mathematics Journal, 34: 178–182

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Polivy J., Herman C.P. (2002) If at first you don’t succeed: False hopes of self-change. American Psychologist, 57: 677–689

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Read D., van Leeuwen B. (1998) Predicting hunger: The effects of appetite and delay on choice. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 76: 189–205

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reagan R., Mosteller F., Youtz C. (1989) Quantitative meanings of verbal probability expressions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74: 433–442

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenstock J.M. (1974) Historical origins of the health belief model. Health Education Monographs, 2: 1–9

    Google Scholar 

  • Rothman A.J. (2000) Toward a theory-based analysis of behavior maintenance. Health Psychology, 19: 1–6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sanfey A.G., Loewenstein G., McClure S.M., Cohen J.D. (2006) Neuroeconomics: Cross-currents in research on decision-making. Trends in Cognitive Science, 10: 108–116

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shepard R.N. (1964) On subjectively optimum selection among multiattribute alternatives. In: Shelly M.W., Bryan G.L.(eds) Human judgments and optimality. Wiley, New York, pp 257–281

    Google Scholar 

  • Shiffman S. (2006) Reflections on smoking relapse research. Drug and Alcohol Review, 25: 15–20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simon H. (1982) Models of bounded rationality. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Stone A.A., Shiffman S. (1994) Ecological momentary assessment (EMA) in behavioral medicine. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 16: 199–202

    Google Scholar 

  • Thaler R.H. (1985) Mental accounting and consumer choice. Marketing Science, 4: 199–214

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • von Winterfeldt D., Edwards W. (1986) Decision analysis and behavioral research. Cambridge University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Wansink B., Sobal J. (2007) Mindless eating: The 200 daily food decisions we overlook. Environment and Behavior, 39: 106–123

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weinstein N.D. (1993) Testing four competing theories of health-protective behavior. Health Psychology, 12: 324–333

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weiss D.J. (2006) Analysis of variance and functional measurement: A practical guide. Oxford University Press, NY

    Google Scholar 

  • Weiss, J.W., Weiss, D.J. (eds) (2009) A science of decision making: The legacy of Ward Edwards. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Weiss J.W., Edwards W., Mouttapa M. (2009) The puzzle of adolescent substance initiation. In: Weiss J.W., Weiss D.J. (eds) A science of decision making: The legacy of Ward Edwards. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 439–450

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Health Science, California State University, Fullerton, 800 N. State College Blvd., Fullerton, CA, 92831, USA

    Jie W. Weiss

  2. California State University, Los Angeles, CA, USA

    David J. Weiss

  3. University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA

    Ward Edwards

Authors
  1. Jie W. Weiss
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. David J. Weiss
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ward Edwards
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jie W. Weiss.

Additional information

Ward Edwards died in 2005. Although this manuscript was written several years after his passing, he participated in the development of several of the key ideas, especially the notion of option packaging. The new parameter, momentary salience, was introduced to resolve the disconnect between laboratory studies of decision making, in which the options and their consequences are fully laid out before the subject, and everyday decisions, in which the decision maker usually has to determine what the reasonable options are before choosing among them. For further discussion of our collaborative efforts, see the introductions in Weiss and Weiss (2009).

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Weiss, J.W., Weiss, D.J. & Edwards, W. A descriptive multi-attribute utility model for everyday decisions. Theory Decis 68, 101–114 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11238-009-9155-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11238-009-9155-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation