IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ejores/v242y2015i3p951-959.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The effect of bi-criteria conflict on matching-elicited preferences

Author

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

Abstract

We focus on multicriteria preference elicitation by matching. In this widely employed task, the decision maker (DM) is presented with two multicriteria options, a and b, and must assess the performance value on one criterion for b, left blank, so that she is indifferent between the two options. A reverse matching, which is normatively equivalent, can be created by integrating the answer to the description of b and letting the DM adjust a performance value on the previously totally specified option a. Such a procedure is called a bi-matching. Consistency requires that isopreferences resulting from the forward and backward matchings be identical, but they empirically differ in a systematic direction. In a matching task, multicriteria conflict refers to the magnitude of the advantage or disadvantage to be compensated. We investigate the effect of the multicriteria conflict, or trade-off size, on the difference of judgement between forward and backward matchings. We observed that the difference of judgement is increased both by multicriteria conflict and by asking deteriorating rather than improving judgements at both steps of the bi-matching. We derive some implications for the practice of preference elicitation.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ejores:v:242:y:2015:i:3:p:951-959
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ejor.2014.11.001
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0377221714009059
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ejor.2014.11.001?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. 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.
    2. Highhouse, Scott & Johnson, Michael A., 1996. "Gain/Loss Asymmetry and Riskless Choice: Loss Aversion in Choices among Job Finalists," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 68(3), pages 225-233, December.
    3. Korhonen, Pekka J. & Silvennoinen, Kari & Wallenius, Jyrki & Öörni, Anssi, 2012. "Can a linear value function explain choices? An experimental study," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 219(2), pages 360-367.
    4. Amos Tversky & Daniel Kahneman, 1991. "Loss Aversion in Riskless Choice: A Reference-Dependent Model," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 106(4), pages 1039-1061.
    5. Tversky, Amos & Slovic, Paul & Kahneman, Daniel, 1990. "The Causes of Preference Reversal," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 80(1), pages 204-217, March.
    6. 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.
    7. A Morton & B Fasolo, 2009. "Behavioural decision theory for multi-criteria decision analysis: a guided tour," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 60(2), pages 268-275, February.
    8. 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.
    9. John C. Hershey & Paul J. H. Schoemaker, 1985. "Probability Versus Certainty Equivalence Methods in Utility Measurement: Are they Equivalent?," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 31(10), pages 1213-1231, October.
    10. 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.
    11. 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.
    12. Greco, Salvatore & Matarazzo, Benedetto & Slowinski, Roman, 2001. "Rough sets theory for multicriteria decision analysis," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 129(1), pages 1-47, February.
    13. Willemsen, Martijn C. & Keren, Gideon, 2003. "The meaning of indifference in choice behavior: Asymmetries in adjustments embodied in matching," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 90(2), pages 342-359, March.
    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. Tversky, Amos & Kahneman, Daniel, 1986. "Rational Choice and the Framing of Decisions," The Journal of Business, University of Chicago Press, vol. 59(4), pages 251-278, October.
    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. Lahtinen, Tuomas J. & Hämäläinen, Raimo P. & Jenytin, Cosmo, 2020. "On preference elicitation processes which mitigate the accumulation of biases in multi-criteria decision analysis," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 282(1), pages 201-210.
    2. Haag, Fridolin & Lienert, Judit & Schuwirth, Nele & Reichert, Peter, 2019. "Identifying non-additive multi-attribute value functions based on uncertain indifference statements," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 49-67.

    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. 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. 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).
    3. Joost M. E. Pennings & Ale Smidts, 2003. "The Shape of Utility Functions and Organizational Behavior," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 49(9), pages 1251-1263, September.
    4. Oliver, Adam, 2003. "The internal consistency of the standard gamble: tests after adjusting for prospect theory," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 159, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    5. Ding, David K. & Charoenwong, Charlie & Seetoh, Raymond, 2004. "Prospect theory, analyst forecasts, and stock returns," Journal of Multinational Financial Management, Elsevier, vol. 14(4-5), pages 425-442.
    6. Angilella, Silvia & Greco, Salvatore & Matarazzo, Benedetto, 2010. "Non-additive robust ordinal regression: A multiple criteria decision model based on the Choquet integral," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 201(1), pages 277-288, February.
    7. Arcidiacono, Sally Giuseppe & Corrente, Salvatore & Greco, Salvatore, 2021. "Robust stochastic sorting with interacting criteria hierarchically structured," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 292(2), pages 735-754.
    8. 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.
    9. feng dai & Jianqiang Liu, 2004. "Development Power and Derivative Process: A Mode and Theory for Macroeconomy Analysis," Macroeconomics 0403015, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    10. Beccacece, Francesca & Borgonovo, Emanuele & Buzzard, Greg & Cillo, Alessandra & Zionts, Stanley, 2015. "Elicitation of multiattribute value functions through high dimensional model representations: Monotonicity and interactions," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 246(2), pages 517-527.
    11. Cathleen Johnson & Aurélien Baillon & Han Bleichrodt & Zhihua Li & Dennie Dolder & Peter P. Wakker, 2021. "Prince: An improved method for measuring incentivized preferences," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 62(1), pages 1-28, February.
    12. Selart, Marcus, 2024. "Preference reversals in judgment and choice," SocArXiv kyvtq, Center for Open Science.
    13. Guitouni, Adel & Martel, Jean-Marc, 1998. "Tentative guidelines to help choosing an appropriate MCDA method," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 109(2), pages 501-521, September.
    14. Corrente, S. & Figueira, J.R. & Greco, S., 2021. "Pairwise comparison tables within the deck of cards method in multiple criteria decision aiding," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 291(2), pages 738-756.
    15. 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.
    16. Wong, Kin Fai Ellick & Kwong, Jessica Y.Y., 2005. "Comparing two tiny giants or two huge dwarfs? Preference reversals owing to number size framing," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 98(1), pages 54-65, September.
    17. Chris Starmer, 1999. "Cycling with Rules of Thumb: An Experimental Test for a new form of Non-Transitive Behaviour," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 46(2), pages 139-157, April.
    18. Roth, Gerrit, 2006. "Predicting the Gap between Willingness to Accept and Willingness to Pay," Munich Dissertations in Economics 4901, University of Munich, Department of Economics.
    19. Oliver, Adam, 2003. "The internal consistency of the standard gamble: tests after adjusting for prospect theory," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 22(4), pages 659-674, July.
    20. Zhihua Li & Songfa Zhong, 2023. "Reference Dependence in Intertemporal Preference," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 69(1), pages 475-490, January.

    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:242:y:2015:i:3:p:951-959. 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.