Measures of compensatory and noncompensatory models of decision behavior: Process tracing versus policy capturing

Robert S. Billings, Stephen A. Marcus
{"title":"Measures of compensatory and noncompensatory models of decision behavior: Process tracing versus policy capturing","authors":"Robert S. Billings,&nbsp;Stephen A. Marcus","doi":"10.1016/0030-5073(83)90129-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>While a variety of techniques have been used to infer compensatory versus noncompensatory decision making, few studies have used multiple measures in order to evaluate their validity. Using a sample of 48 college students, this study examines two measures from a search task (the variability and pattern of search on an information board) and three measures from a rating or judgment task (nonlinear regression modeling, ANOVA measures of interaction and curvilinearity). The validity of these measures is assessed by their sensitivity to a manipulation of information load and their extent of convergence with one another. The variability of search on the information board and the ANOVA measures of interaction and curvilinearity all indicated an increase in noncompensatory decision making under high information load, while the regression modeling measure did not. There was some convergence between the regression and ANOVA indices, but no relation between the search task and rating task measures. It is concluded that the ANOVA measures of interaction and curvilinearity are more sensitive measures than the nonlinear regression procedure. The information board and ANOVA measures are apparently both valid indices of noncompensatory decision making; they may lack convergence because they represent different parts of the decision process (information acquisition vs combination) or require different responses (choice vs judgment).</p></div>","PeriodicalId":76928,"journal":{"name":"Organizational behavior and human performance","volume":"31 3","pages":"Pages 331-352"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1983-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/0030-5073(83)90129-0","citationCount":"193","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Organizational behavior and human performance","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0030507383901290","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 193

Abstract

While a variety of techniques have been used to infer compensatory versus noncompensatory decision making, few studies have used multiple measures in order to evaluate their validity. Using a sample of 48 college students, this study examines two measures from a search task (the variability and pattern of search on an information board) and three measures from a rating or judgment task (nonlinear regression modeling, ANOVA measures of interaction and curvilinearity). The validity of these measures is assessed by their sensitivity to a manipulation of information load and their extent of convergence with one another. The variability of search on the information board and the ANOVA measures of interaction and curvilinearity all indicated an increase in noncompensatory decision making under high information load, while the regression modeling measure did not. There was some convergence between the regression and ANOVA indices, but no relation between the search task and rating task measures. It is concluded that the ANOVA measures of interaction and curvilinearity are more sensitive measures than the nonlinear regression procedure. The information board and ANOVA measures are apparently both valid indices of noncompensatory decision making; they may lack convergence because they represent different parts of the decision process (information acquisition vs combination) or require different responses (choice vs judgment).

决策行为的补偿和非补偿模型的度量:过程跟踪与策略捕获
虽然已经使用了各种各样的技术来推断补偿与非补偿决策,但很少有研究使用多种措施来评估其有效性。本研究以48名大学生为样本,考察了搜索任务(信息板上搜索的可变性和模式)和评分或判断任务(非线性回归建模、交互和曲线的方差分析)的两个指标。这些措施的有效性是通过它们对信息负荷操纵的敏感性和它们彼此收敛的程度来评估的。信息板搜索的可变性、交互作用和曲线度的方差分析均表明,在高信息负荷下,非补偿性决策增加,而回归建模测量则没有。回归指标与方差分析指标之间存在一定的收敛性,但搜索任务与评分任务测度之间不存在相关性。结果表明,相互作用和曲线的方差分析方法比非线性回归方法更敏感。信息板测度和方差分析测度显然都是有效的非补偿性决策指标;它们可能缺乏收敛性,因为它们代表决策过程的不同部分(信息获取vs组合)或需要不同的响应(选择vs判断)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信