IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ejores/v234y2014i1p221-230.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Implausible alternatives in eliciting multi-attribute value functions

Author

Listed:
  • Vetschera, Rudolf
  • Weitzl, Wolfgang
  • Wolfsteiner, Elisabeth

Abstract

Many methods to elicit preference models in multi-attribute decision making rely on evaluations of a set of sample alternatives by decision makers. Using orthogonal design methods to create this set of alternatives might require respondents to evaluate unrealistic alternatives. In this paper, we perform an empirical study to analyze whether the presence of such implausible alternatives has an effect on the quality of utility elicitation. Using a new approach to measure consistency, we find that implausible alternatives in fact, have a positive effect on consistency of intra-attribute preference information and consistency with dominance, but do not affect inter-attribute preference information.

Suggested Citation

  • Vetschera, Rudolf & Weitzl, Wolfgang & Wolfsteiner, Elisabeth, 2014. "Implausible alternatives in eliciting multi-attribute value functions," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 234(1), pages 221-230.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ejores:v:234:y:2014:i:1:p:221-230
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ejor.2013.09.016
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0377221713007716
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ejor.2013.09.016?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. Eggers Felix & Sattler Henrik, 2011. "Preference Measurement with Conjoint Analysis. Overview of State-of-the-Art Approaches and Recent Developments," NIM Marketing Intelligence Review, Sciendo, vol. 3(1), pages 36-47, May.
    2. Green, Paul E & Helsen, Kristiaan & Shandler, Bruce, 1988. "Conjoint Internal Validity under Alternative Profile Presentations," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 15(3), pages 392-397, December.
    3. Paul E. Green & Abba M. Krieger & Yoram Wind, 2001. "Thirty Years of Conjoint Analysis: Reflections and Prospects," Interfaces, INFORMS, vol. 31(3_supplem), pages 56-73, June.
    4. Paul J. H. Schoemaker & C. Carter Waid, 1982. "An Experimental Comparison of Different Approaches to Determining Weights in Additive Utility Models," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 28(2), pages 182-196, February.
    5. V. Srinivasan & Allan Shocker, 1973. "Estimating the weights for multiple attributes in a composite criterion using pairwise judgments," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 38(4), pages 473-493, December.
    6. Rüdiger von Nitzsch & Martin Weber, 1993. "The Effect of Attribute Ranges on Weights in Multiattribute Utility Measurements," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 39(8), pages 937-943, August.
    7. Jacquet-Lagreze, E. & Siskos, J., 1982. "Assessing a set of additive utility functions for multicriteria decision-making, the UTA method," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 10(2), pages 151-164, June.
    8. Dan Horsky & M. R. Rao, 1984. "Estimation of Attribute Weights from Preference Comparisons," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 30(7), pages 801-822, July.
    9. Jacquet-Lagreze, Eric & Siskos, Yannis, 2001. "Preference disaggregation: 20 years of MCDA experience," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 130(2), pages 233-245, April.
    10. Green, Paul E & Srinivasan, V, 1978. "Conjoint Analysis in Consumer Research: Issues and Outlook," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 5(2), pages 103-123, Se.
    11. Holloway, Hillary A. & White III, Chelsea C., 2003. "Question selection for multi-attribute decision-aiding," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 148(3), pages 525-533, August.
    12. Weber, Martin & Borcherding, Katrin, 1993. "Behavioral influences on weight judgments in multiattribute decision making," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 67(1), pages 1-12, May.
    13. Beuthe, Michel & Scannella, Giuseppe, 2001. "Comparative analysis of UTA multicriteria methods," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 130(2), pages 246-262, April.
    14. Green, Paul E, 1974. "On the Design of Choice Experiments Involving Multifactor Alternatives," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 1(2), pages 61-68, Se.
    15. David R. Bell & James M. Lattin, 1998. "Shopping Behavior and Consumer Preference for Store Price Format: Why “Large Basket” Shoppers Prefer EDLP," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 17(1), pages 66-88.
    16. Doumpos, Michael & Zopounidis, Constantin, 2004. "Developing sorting models using preference disaggregation analysis: An experimental investigation," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 154(3), pages 585-598, May.
    17. Moore, William L & Holbrook, Morris B, 1990. "Conjoint Analysis on Objects with Environmentally Correlated Attributes: The Questionable Importance of Representative Design," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 16(4), pages 490-497, March.
    18. Vetschera, Rudolf, 2009. "Learning about preferences in electronic negotiations - A volume-based measurement method," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 194(2), pages 452-463, April.
    19. Greco, Salvatore & Mousseau, Vincent & Slowinski, Roman, 2008. "Ordinal regression revisited: Multiple criteria ranking using a set of additive value functions," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 191(2), pages 416-436, December.
    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. van Valkenhoef, Gert & Tervonen, Tommi, 2016. "Entropy-optimal weight constraint elicitation with additive multi-attribute utility models," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 1-12.
    3. Reimann, Olivier & Schumacher, Christian & Vetschera, Rudolf, 2017. "How well does the OWA operator represent real preferences?," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 258(3), pages 993-1003.
    4. Gehrlein, Jonas & Miebs, Grzegorz & Brunelli, Matteo & Kadziński, Miłosz, 2023. "An active preference learning approach to aid the selection of validators in blockchain environments," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 118(C).

    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. Vetschera, Rudolf, 2017. "Deriving rankings from incomplete preference information: A comparison of different approaches," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 258(1), pages 244-253.
    2. Doumpos, Michael & Zopounidis, Constantin, 2011. "Preference disaggregation and statistical learning for multicriteria decision support: A review," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 209(3), pages 203-214, March.
    3. Ciomek, Krzysztof & Kadziński, Miłosz & Tervonen, Tommi, 2017. "Heuristics for selecting pair-wise elicitation questions in multiple criteria choice problems," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 262(2), pages 693-707.
    4. 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.
    5. de Almeida, Jonatas Araujo & Costa, Ana Paula Cabral Seixas & de Almeida-Filho, Adiel Teixeira, 2016. "A new method for elicitation of criteria weights in additive models: Flexible and interactive tradeoffAuthor-Name: de Almeida, Adiel Teixeira," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 250(1), pages 179-191.
    6. Bous, Géraldine & Fortemps, Philippe & Glineur, François & Pirlot, Marc, 2010. "ACUTA: A novel method for eliciting additive value functions on the basis of holistic preference statements," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 206(2), pages 435-444, October.
    7. Ghaderi, Mohammad & Kadziński, Miłosz, 2021. "Incorporating uncovered structural patterns in value functions construction," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    8. Kadziński, Miłosz & Wójcik, Michał & Ciomek, Krzysztof, 2022. "Review and experimental comparison of ranking and choice procedures for constructing a univocal recommendation in a preference disaggregation setting," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 113(C).
    9. Vetschera, Rudolf & Chen, Ye & Hipel, Keith W. & Marc Kilgour, D., 2010. "Robustness and information levels in case-based multiple criteria sorting," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 202(3), pages 841-852, May.
    10. Bouchery, Yann & Ghaffari, Asma & Jemai, Zied & Dallery, Yves, 2012. "Including sustainability criteria into inventory models," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 222(2), pages 229-240.
    11. Ghaderi, Mohammad & Ruiz, Francisco & Agell, Núria, 2017. "A linear programming approach for learning non-monotonic additive value functions in multiple criteria decision aiding," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 259(3), pages 1073-1084.
    12. Wachowicz, Tomasz & Roszkowska, Ewa, 2022. "Can holistic declaration of preferences improve a negotiation offer scoring system?," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 299(3), pages 1018-1032.
    13. Kadziński, MiŁosz & Greco, Salvatore & SŁowiński, Roman, 2012. "Extreme ranking analysis in robust ordinal regression," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 40(4), pages 488-501.
    14. Gineo, Wayne M., 1990. "A Conjoint/Logit Analysis Of Nursery Stock Purchases," Northeastern Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 19(1), pages 1-10, April.
    15. Mousseau, Vincent & Dias, Luis, 2004. "Valued outranking relations in ELECTRE providing manageable disaggregation procedures," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 156(2), pages 467-482, July.
    16. Risto Lahdelma & Pekka Salminen, 2001. "SMAA-2: Stochastic Multicriteria Acceptability Analysis for Group Decision Making," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 49(3), pages 444-454, June.
    17. Olivier Toubia & Duncan I. Simester & John R. Hauser & Ely Dahan, 2003. "Fast Polyhedral Adaptive Conjoint Estimation," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(3), pages 273-303.
    18. Sobrie, Olivier & Gillis, Nicolas & Mousseau, Vincent & Pirlot, Marc, 2018. "UTA-poly and UTA-splines: Additive value functions with polynomial marginals," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 264(2), pages 405-418.
    19. Marinakis, Vangelis & Doukas, Haris & Xidonas, Panos & Zopounidis, Constantin, 2017. "Multicriteria decision support in local energy planning: An evaluation of alternative scenarios for the Sustainable Energy Action Plan," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 1-16.
    20. Bottomley, Paul A. & Doyle, John R., 2001. "A comparison of three weight elicitation methods: good, better, and best," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 29(6), pages 553-560, December.

    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:234:y:2014:i:1:p:221-230. 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.