IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ejores/v221y2012i3p593-602.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

When conflict induces the expression of incomplete preferences

Author

Listed:
  • Deparis, Stéphane
  • Mousseau, Vincent
  • Öztürk, Meltem
  • Pallier, Christophe
  • Huron, Caroline

Abstract

Multicriteria conflict arises in pairwise comparisons, where each alternative outperforms the other one on some criterion, which imposes a trade-off. Comparing two alternatives can be difficult if their respective advantages are of high magnitude (the attribute spread is large). In this paper, we investigate to which extent conflict in a comparison situation can lead decision makers to express incomplete preferences, that is, to refuse to compare the two alternatives, or to be unable to compare them with confidence. We report on an experiment in which subjects expressed preferences on pairs of alternatives involving varying conflicts. Results show that depending on whether the participants are allowed to express incomplete preferences or not, attribute spread has a different effect: a large attribute spread increases the frequency of incomparability statements, when available, while it increases the use of indifference statements when only indifference and preference answers are permitted. These results lead us to derive some implications for preference elicitation methods involving comparison tasks.

Suggested Citation

  • Deparis, Stéphane & Mousseau, Vincent & Öztürk, Meltem & Pallier, Christophe & Huron, Caroline, 2012. "When conflict induces the expression of incomplete preferences," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 221(3), pages 593-602.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ejores:v:221:y:2012:i:3:p:593-602
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ejor.2012.03.041
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0377221712002512
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ejor.2012.03.041?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Dubra, Juan & Maccheroni, Fabio & Ok, Efe A., 2004. "Expected utility theory without the completeness axiom," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 115(1), pages 118-133, March.
    2. Gregory W. Fischer & Mary Frances Luce & Jianmin Jia, 2000. "Attribute Conflict and Preference Uncertainty: Effects on Judgment Time and Error," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 46(1), pages 88-103, January.
    3. Eric Danan & Anthony Ziegelmeyer, 2004. "Are preferences incomplete? An experimental study using flexible choices," Papers on Strategic Interaction 2004-23, Max Planck Institute of Economics, Strategic Interaction Group.
    4. Luce, Mary Frances & Payne, John W. & Bettman, James R., 2000. "Coping with Unfavorable Attribute Values in Choice," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 81(2), pages 274-299, March.
    5. Gregory W. Fischer & Ziv Carmon & Dan Ariely & Gal Zauberman, 1999. "Goal-Based Construction of Preferences: Task Goals and the Prominence Effect," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 45(8), pages 1057-1075, August.
    6. Henry Stott, 2006. "Cumulative prospect theory's functional menagerie," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 32(2), pages 101-130, March.
    7. Luce, Mary Frances, 1998. "Choosing to Avoid: Coping with Negatively Emotion-Laden Consumer Decisions," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 24(4), pages 409-433, March.
    8. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    9. Podinovskii, Vladislav V., 1994. "Criteria importance theory," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 27(3), pages 237-252, June.
    10. Herbert A. Simon, 1955. "A Behavioral Model of Rational Choice," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 69(1), pages 99-118.
    11. Anish Nagpal & Parthasarathy Krishnamurthy, 2008. "Attribute Conflict in Consumer Decision Making: The Role of Task Compatibility," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 34(5), pages 696-705, August.
    12. Edwards, Ward & Barron, F. Hutton, 1994. "SMARTS and SMARTER: Improved Simple Methods for Multiattribute Utility Measurement," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 60(3), pages 306-325, December.
    13. Juan Dubra & Fabio Maccheroni & Efe A. Ok, 2004. "Expected Utility Without the Completeness Axiom," Yale School of Management Working Papers ysm404, Yale School of Management.
    14. Philippe Delquié, 2003. "Optimal Conflict in Preference Assessment," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 49(1), pages 102-115, January.
    15. Kuhberger, Anton & Schulte-Mecklenbeck, Michael & Perner, Josef, 2002. "Framing decisions: Hypothetical and real," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 89(2), pages 1162-1175, November.
    16. Subimal Chatterjee & Timothy B. Heath, 1996. "Conflict and Loss Aversion in Multiattribute Choice: The Effects of Trade-Off Size and Reference Dependence on Decision Difficulty," Post-Print hal-00670460, HAL.
    17. Chatterjee, Subimal & Heath, Timothy B., 1996. "Conflict and Loss Aversion in Multiattribute Choice: The Effects of Trade-Off Size and Reference Dependence on Decision Difficulty," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 67(2), pages 144-155, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Zheng, Jun & Lienert, Judit, 2018. "Stakeholder interviews with two MAVT preference elicitation philosophies in a Swiss water infrastructure decision: Aggregation using SWING-weighting and disaggregation using UTAGMS," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 267(1), pages 273-287.
    2. Riley, David & Schaafsma, Marije & Marin-Moreno, Héctor & Minshull, Tim A., 2020. "A social, environmental and economic evaluation protocol for potential gas hydrate exploitation projects," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 263(C).
    3. Weixuan Xia, 2023. "Optimal Consumption--Investment Problems under Time-Varying Incomplete Preferences," Papers 2312.00266, arXiv.org.
    4. Deparis, Stéphane & Mousseau, Vincent & Öztürk, Meltem & Huron, Caroline, 2015. "The effect of bi-criteria conflict on matching-elicited preferences," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 242(3), pages 951-959.
    5. Denis Bouyssou & Marc Pirlot, 2015. "A consolidated approach to the axiomatization of outranking relations: a survey and new results," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 229(1), pages 159-212, June.
    6. Maltz, Amnon & Rachmilevitch, Shiran, 2021. "A model of menu-dependent evaluations and comparison-aversion," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 91(C).
    7. Konstantina Anastasiadou & Nikolaos Gavanas & Magda Pitsiava-Latinopoulou & Evangelos Bekiaris, 2021. "Infrastructure Planning for Autonomous Electric Vehicles, Integrating Safety and Sustainability Aspects: A Multi-Criteria Analysis Approach," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(17), pages 1-19, August.
    8. Jones, Dylan & Jimenez, Mariano, 2013. "Incorporating additional meta-objectives into the extended lexicographic goal programming framework," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 227(2), pages 343-349.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Cheng, Yin-Hui & Chuang, Shih-Chieh & Pei-I Yu, Annie & Lai, Wan-Ting, 2019. "Change in your wallet, change your choice: The effect of the change-matching heuristic on choice," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 67-76.
    2. Parthasarathy Krishnamurthy & Anish Nagpal, 2010. "Making choices under conflict: The impact of decision frames," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 21(1), pages 37-51, March.
    3. Walter Bossert & Kotaro Suzumura, 2015. "Expected utility without full transitivity," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 45(4), pages 707-722, December.
    4. Eddie Dekel & Barton L. Lipman, 2010. "How (Not) to Do Decision Theory," Annual Review of Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 2(1), pages 257-282, September.
    5. Anish Nagpal & Adwait Khare & Tilottama Chowdhury & Lauren Labrecque & Ameet Pandit, 2011. "The impact of the amount of available information on decision delay: The role of common features," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 22(4), pages 405-421, November.
    6. Philippe Delquié, 2003. "Optimal Conflict in Preference Assessment," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 49(1), pages 102-115, January.
    7. Arts, Sara & Ong, Qiyan & Qiu, Jianying, 2020. "Measuring subjective decision confidence," MPRA Paper 117907, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    8. Xiaosheng Mu, 2021. "Sequential Choice with Incomplete Preferences," Working Papers 2021-35, Princeton University. Economics Department..
    9. Kwon, Kyoung-Nan & Lee, Jinkook, 2009. "The effects of reference point, knowledge, and risk propensity on the evaluation of financial products," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 62(7), pages 719-725, July.
    10. Arts, Sara & Ong, Qiyan & Qiu, Jianying, 2020. "Measuring subjective decision confidence," MPRA Paper 106811, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    11. Simone Cerreia‐Vioglio & David Dillenberger & Pietro Ortoleva, 2015. "Cautious Expected Utility and the Certainty Effect," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 83, pages 693-728, March.
    12. Ralph L. Keeney, 2002. "Common Mistakes in Making Value Trade-Offs," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 50(6), pages 935-945, December.
    13. Simone Cerreia-Vioglio & Fabio Maccheroni & Massimo Marinacci, 2017. "Stochastic Dominance Analysis Without the Independence Axiom," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 63(4), pages 1097-1109, April.
    14. Willemsen, Martijn C. & Keren, Gideon, 2002. "Negative-based prominence: the role of negative features in matching and choice," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 88(2), pages 643-666, July.
    15. Mamoru Kaneko, 2019. "Expected Utility Theory with Probability Grids and Preference Formation," Working Papers 1902, Waseda University, Faculty of Political Science and Economics.
    16. Buturak, Gökhan & Evren, Özgür, 2017. "Choice overload and asymmetric regret," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 12(3), September.
    17. Park, Sungsoon & Rothrock, Ling, 2007. "Systematic analysis of framing bias in missile defense: Implications toward visualization design," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 182(3), pages 1383-1398, November.
    18. Cettolin, E. & Riedl, A.M., 2015. "Revealed incomplete preferences under uncertainty," Research Memorandum 016, Maastricht University, Graduate School of Business and Economics (GSBE).
    19. Dimitrios Tsekouras & Benedict G. C. Dellaert & Bas Donkers & Gerald Häubl, 2020. "Product set granularity and consumer response to recommendations," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 48(2), pages 186-202, March.
    20. John D. Hey & Yudistira Permana & Nuttaporn Rochanahastin, 2018. "When and how to satisfice: an experimental investigation," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Experiments in Economics Decision Making and Markets, chapter 5, pages 121-137, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:ejores:v:221:y:2012:i:3:p:593-602. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/eor .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.