The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
How to Use Multiattribute Utility Measurement for Social Decisionmaking
Abstract
Arguments over public policy typically turn out to hinge on disagreements about public values. Often, those in conflict may agree about what the relevant dimensions of value are. The conflicts arise over the relative importance of various goals. Normally, such disagreements are fought out in the contexts of specific decisions, and so are fought out over and over again, at enormous social cost each time another decision must be made. This paper proposes a method that can spell out explicitly what each individual's or group's values are, showing how and how much they differ-and in the process can frequently reduce the extent of such differences. It presents data illustrating the application of this technology, multiattribute utility measurement, to two specific instances: management of the coastal zone of the town of Venice, a part of Los Angeles, CA; and selection of research programs for the Office of Child Development, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. In both cases, exploitation of multiattribute utility measurement permits the decisionmaking or regulatory agencies to shift their attention from the specific actions, being regulated to the values these actions serve and the decisionmaking mechanisms that implement these values. In the process, the data show that degree of disagreement about values among holders of conflicting value systems are often reduced.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Unit weighting schemes for decision making
Einhorn, H. J., & Hogarth, R. M. (1975) · Organizational Behavior and Human Performance · doi:10.1016/0030-5073(75)90044-6 · Cited by 673
Cited by
Behavioral Decision Theory: Processes of Judgement and Choice
Einhorn, H. J., & Hogarth, R. M. (1981) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev.ps.32.020181.000413 · Cited by 1,691
Application of multicriteria decision analysis in environmental decision making
Kiker, G. A., Bridges, T. S., Varghese, A., Seager, T. P., & Linkov, I. (2005) · Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management · doi:10.1897/ieam_2004a-015.1 · Cited by 914
Thokala, P., Devlin, N., Marsh, K., Baltussen, R., Boysen, M., Kalo, Z., Longrenn, T., Mussen, F., Peacock, S., Watkins, J., et al. (2016) · Value in Health · doi:10.1016/j.jval.2015.12.003 · Cited by 739
Ananda, J., & Herath, G. (2009) · Ecological Economics · doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.05.010 · Cited by 451
On the measurement of preferences in the analytic hierarchy process
Salo, A. A., & Hämäläinen, R. P. (1997) · Journal of Multi‐Criteria Decision Analysis · doi:10.1002/(sici)1099-1360(199711)6:6<309::aid-mcda163>3.0.co;2-2 · Cited by 396
Metadata
- Authors
- Edwards, W.
- Venue
- IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics
- Published
- 1977
- Volume
- 7
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 326-340
- ISSN
- 0018-9472 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W71111092
- Cited by
- 1,033
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 22.35
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: How to Use Multiattribute Utility Measurement for Social Decisionmaking. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1109/tsmc.1977.4309720
- The paper
- Edwards, W. (1977). How to Use Multiattribute Utility Measurement for Social Decisionmaking. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics. https://doi.org/10.1109/tsmc.1977.4309720
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.