A Psychometric Analysis of the "Divide and Conquer" Principle in Multicriteria Decision Making.

The principle of "Divide and Conquer" (DAC) suggests that: (1) complex decision problems should be decomposed into smaller, more manageable parts and (2) these smaller parts should be logically aggregated to derive an overall value for each alternative. Typically, decompositional procedures have been compared to holistic evaluations that require decision makers to simultaneously consider all of the relevant attributes in the evaluation of the objects under consideration. These comparisons between decompositional and holistic judgments have primarily used a variant of Multiattribute Utility Theory (MAUT). We presented a general experimental framework that allows for a more extensive assessment of the DAC principle, as well as the effects of decision complexity on both holistic and decompositional procedures. We illustrate this approach with a study that uses the Simple Multiattribute Rating Technique with Swing Weights (SMARTS; Edwards & Barron, 1994) and the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP; Saaty, 1980). We report data comparing the convergent validity (e.g the agreement between decompositional and holistic strategies) and the temporal stability for decompositional and holistic judgments on a variety of dependent measures. Decision complexity did not significantly affect the correspondence between decompositional and holistic judgments for both SMARTS and AHP judgments. Results from an ordinal measure of temporal stability indicated the DAC principle was violated for the AHP judgments. For a linear measure of temporal stability, trends in the data indicated that the predicted effects of decision complexity on the DAC principle was violated for the SMARTS judgments. Copyright 1998 Academic Press.