IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/annopr/v211y2013i1p531-54810.1007-s10479-013-1345-0.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Behavioral multi-criteria decision analysis: the TODIM method with criteria interactions

Author

Listed:
  • Luiz Gomes
  • Maria Machado
  • Luis Rangel

Abstract

In this paper a multi-criteria decision aiding model is developed through the use of the Choquet integral. The proposed model is an extension of the TODIM method, which is based on nonlinear Cumulative Prospect Theory. The paper starts by reviewing the first steps of behavioral decision theory. A presentation of the TODIM method follows. The basic concepts of the Choquet integral as related to multi-criteria decision aiding are reviewed. It is also shown how the measures of dominance of the TODIM method can be rewritten through the application of the Choquet integral. From the ordering of decision criteria the fuzzy measures of criteria interactions are computed, which leads to the ranking of alternatives. A case study on the forecasting of property values for rent in a Brazilian city illustrates the proposed model. Results obtained from the use of the Choquet integral are then compared against a previously made usage of the TODIM method. It is concluded that significant advantages exist derived from the use of the Choquet integral. The paper closes with recommendations for future research. Copyright Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Suggested Citation

  • Luiz Gomes & Maria Machado & Luis Rangel, 2013. "Behavioral multi-criteria decision analysis: the TODIM method with criteria interactions," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 211(1), pages 531-548, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:annopr:v:211:y:2013:i:1:p:531-548:10.1007/s10479-013-1345-0
    DOI: 10.1007/s10479-013-1345-0
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s10479-013-1345-0
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10479-013-1345-0?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. Dubois, Didier & Prade, Henri, 1989. "Fuzzy sets, probability and measurement," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 40(2), pages 135-154, May.
    2. Tversky, Amos & Kahneman, Daniel, 1992. "Advances in Prospect Theory: Cumulative Representation of Uncertainty," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 5(4), pages 297-323, October.
    3. JosÉ Figueira & Salvatore Greco & Matthias Ehrogott, 2005. "Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis: State of the Art Surveys," International Series in Operations Research and Management Science, Springer, number 978-0-387-23081-8, July-Dece.
    4. Itzhak Gilboa & David Schmeidler, 1992. "Additive Representation of Non-Additive Measures and the Choquet Integral," Discussion Papers 985, Northwestern University, Center for Mathematical Studies in Economics and Management Science.
    5. Michel Grabisch & Christophe Labreuche, 2010. "A decade of application of the Choquet and Sugeno integrals in multi-criteria decision aid," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 175(1), pages 247-286, March.
    6. Camerer, Colin F & Ho, Teck-Hua, 1994. "Violations of the Betweenness Axiom and Nonlinearity in Probability," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 8(2), pages 167-196, March.
    7. Dubois, Didier & Prade, Henri, 1986. "Fuzzy sets and statistical data," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 25(3), pages 345-356.
    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. Jyrki Wallenius & James S. Dyer & Peter C. Fishburn & Ralph E. Steuer & Stanley Zionts & Kalyanmoy Deb, 2008. "Multiple Criteria Decision Making, Multiattribute Utility Theory: Recent Accomplishments and What Lies Ahead," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 54(7), pages 1336-1349, July.
    10. Lahdelma, Risto & Salminen, Pekka, 2009. "Prospect theory and stochastic multicriteria acceptability analysis (SMAA)," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 37(5), pages 961-971, October.
    11. Neilson, William S & Stowe, Jill, 2002. "A Further Examination of Cumulative Prospect Theory Parameterizations," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 24(1), pages 31-46, January.
    12. Autran Monteiro Gomes, Luiz Flávio & Duncan Rangel, LuI´s Alberto, 2009. "An application of the TODIM method to the multicriteria rental evaluation of residential properties," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 193(1), pages 204-211, February.
    13. 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.
    14. Grabisch, Michel, 1996. "The application of fuzzy integrals in multicriteria decision making," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 89(3), pages 445-456, March.
    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. Volker Kuppelwieser & Fouad Ben Abdelaziz & Olfa Meddeb, 2020. "Unstable interactions in customers’ decision making: an experimental proof," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 294(1), pages 479-499, November.
    2. Xiaolu Zhang, 2016. "New Interval-Valued Intuitionistic Fuzzy Behavioral MADM Method and Its Application in the Selection of Photovoltaic Cells," Energies, MDPI, vol. 9(10), pages 1-20, October.
    3. Zhenyu Zhang & Jie Lin & Huirong Zhang & Shuangsheng Wu & Dapei Jiang, 2020. "Hybrid TODIM Method for Law Enforcement Possibility Evaluation of Judgment Debtor," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 8(10), pages 1-21, October.
    4. Yuan-Sheng Lee & Hsu-Shih Shih, 2016. "Incremental analysis for generalized TODIM," Central European Journal of Operations Research, Springer;Slovak Society for Operations Research;Hungarian Operational Research Society;Czech Society for Operations Research;Österr. Gesellschaft für Operations Research (ÖGOR);Slovenian Society Informatika - Section for Operational Research;Croatian Operational Research Society, vol. 24(4), pages 901-922, December.
    5. Roger Chapman Burk & Richard M. Nehring, 2023. "An Empirical Comparison of Rank-Based Surrogate Weights in Additive Multiattribute Decision Analysis," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 20(1), pages 55-72, March.
    6. Llamazares, Bonifacio, 2018. "An analysis of the generalized TODIM method," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 269(3), pages 1041-1049.

    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. Gebhard Geiger, 2012. "Multi-attribute non-expected utility," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 196(1), pages 263-292, July.
    2. Che-Yuan Liang, 2017. "Optimal inequality behind the veil of ignorance," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 83(3), pages 431-455, October.
    3. D. A. Peel & Jie Zhang & D. Law, 2008. "The Markowitz model of utility supplemented with a small degree of probability distortion as an explanation of outcomes of Allais experiments over large and small payoffs and gambling on unlikely outc," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 40(1), pages 17-26.
    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. Jou, Rong-Chang & Chen, Ke-Hong, 2013. "An application of cumulative prospect theory to freeway drivers’ route choice behaviours," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 123-131.
    6. Pavlo R. Blavatskyy, "undated". "A Stochastic Expected Utility Theory," IEW - Working Papers 231, Institute for Empirical Research in Economics - University of Zurich.
    7. Schwanen, Tim & Ettema, Dick, 2009. "Coping with unreliable transportation when collecting children: Examining parents' behavior with cumulative prospect theory," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 43(5), pages 511-525, June.
    8. Corrente, Salvatore & Greco, Salvatore & Ishizaka, Alessio, 2016. "Combining analytical hierarchy process and Choquet integral within non-additive robust ordinal regression," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 2-18.
    9. Matthew Rabin, 1998. "Psychology and Economics," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 36(1), pages 11-46, March.
    10. Matteo Ploner, 2017. "Hold on to it? An experimental analysis of the disposition effect," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 12(2), pages 118-127, March.
    11. Peter P. Wakker, 2023. "The correct formula of 1979 prospect theory for multiple outcomes," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 94(2), pages 183-187, February.
    12. Bouyssou, Denis & Marchant, Thierry, 2013. "Multiattribute preference models with reference points," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 229(2), pages 470-481.
    13. Pavlo Blavatskyy, 2018. "A second-generation disappointment aversion theory of decision making under risk," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 84(1), pages 29-60, January.
    14. Martín Egozcue & Luis Fuentes García & Ričardas Zitikis, 2023. "The Slicing Method: Determining Insensitivity Regions of Probability Weighting Functions," Computational Economics, Springer;Society for Computational Economics, vol. 61(4), pages 1369-1402, April.
    15. Michael H. Birnbaum, 2005. "Three New Tests of Independence That Differentiate Models of Risky Decision Making," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 51(9), pages 1346-1358, September.
    16. Pavlo R. Blavatskyy, 2005. "Back to the St. Petersburg Paradox?," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 51(4), pages 677-678, April.
    17. repec:cup:judgdm:v:12:y:2017:i:2:p:118-127 is not listed on IDEAS
    18. Marie Pfiffelmann, 2011. "Solving the St. Petersburg Paradox in cumulative prospect theory: the right amount of probability weighting," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 71(3), pages 325-341, September.
    19. Glenn W. Harrison & J. Todd Swarthout, 2016. "Cumulative Prospect Theory in the Laboratory: A Reconsideration," Experimental Economics Center Working Paper Series 2016-04, Experimental Economics Center, Andrew Young School of Policy Studies, Georgia State University.
    20. Marc Rieger & Mei Wang, 2008. "Prospect theory for continuous distributions," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 36(1), pages 83-102, February.
    21. Konstantinos Katsikopoulos & Gerd Gigerenzer, 2008. "One-reason decision-making: Modeling violations of expected utility theory," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 37(1), pages 35-56, August.

    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:spr:annopr:v:211:y:2013:i:1:p:531-548:10.1007/s10479-013-1345-0. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.