Random error in holistic evaluations and additive decompositions of multiattribute utility - an empirical comparison

This paper details the results of an empirical investigation of the random errors associated with decomposition estimates of multiattribute utility. In a riskless setting, two groups of subjects were asked to evaluate multiattribute alternatives both holistically and with the use of an additive decomposition. For one group, the alternatives were described in terms of three attributes, and for the other in terms of five. Estimates of random error associated with the various elicitations (holistic, single‐attribute utility, scaling constants, or weights) were obtained using a test‐retest format. It was found for both groups that the additive decomposition had significantly smaller levels of random error than the holistic evaluation. However, the number of attributes did not seem to make a significant difference to the amount of random error associated with the decomposition estimates. The levels of error found in the various elicitations were consistent with theoretical bounds that have recently been proposed in the literature. These results show that the structure imposed on the problem through decomposition results in measurable improvement in quality of the multiattribute utility judgements, and contribute to a greater understanding of the decomposition method in decision analysis.