IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ejores/v322y2025i1p182-197.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Effects of many conflicting objectives on decision-makers’ cognitive burden and decision consistency

Author

Listed:
  • Kivikangas, J. Matias
  • Vilkkumaa, Eeva
  • Blank, Julian
  • Harjunen, Ville
  • Malo, Pekka
  • Deb, Kalyanmoy
  • Ravaja, Niklas J.
  • Wallenius, Jyrki

Abstract

Practical planning and decision-making problems are often better and more accurately formulated with multiple conflicting objectives rather than a single objective. This study investigates a situation relevant for Multiple Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) as well as Evolutionary Multi-objective Optimization (EMO), where the decision-maker needs to make a series of choices between nondominated options characterized by multiple objectives. The cognitive capacity of humans is limited, which leads to cognitive burden that influences human decision-makers’ decisions. We measure how the varying number of objectives influences cognitive burden in a laboratory study, and the impacts that this burden has on the decision-makers’ behavior and the consistency of their decisions. We use psychophysiological, behavioral, and self-report methods. Our results suggest that a higher number of objectives (i) increases cognitive burden significantly, (ii) leads to adopting strategies in which only a limited number of objectives is considered, and (iii) decreases decision consistency.

Suggested Citation

  • Kivikangas, J. Matias & Vilkkumaa, Eeva & Blank, Julian & Harjunen, Ville & Malo, Pekka & Deb, Kalyanmoy & Ravaja, Niklas J. & Wallenius, Jyrki, 2025. "Effects of many conflicting objectives on decision-makers’ cognitive burden and decision consistency," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 322(1), pages 182-197.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ejores:v:322:y:2025:i:1:p:182-197
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ejor.2024.10.039
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0377221724008427
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ejor.2024.10.039?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.

    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:322:y:2025:i:1:p:182-197. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.