Abstract
In the research design, iteration between two multiattribute techniques is used to compare their ability to elicit preferences. Each subject used one technique, then a second, and iterated between the two. Previous judgments from each technique were presented as two anchors for each succeeding judgment. The final, converged judgment is an estimate of intended preferences, or at least of constructed preferences. The technique that in its first use yielded preferences closer to the converged preference is therefore the better technique. Three techniques (MUT, AHP, and AHP') were compared in two experiments. MUT was found to be more effective than AHP' and not significantly different from AHP. The results also imply that judgments of ratios between atrribute intervals are more difficult to make than judgments of equivalence of intervals.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.