IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/tjorxx/v70y2019i7p1140-1148.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Judgments of importance revisited: What do they mean?

Author

Listed:
  • Tommi Pajala
  • Pekka Korhonen
  • Jyrki Wallenius

Abstract

In a multiple criteria decision-making problem, decision-makers often make judgments of importance, for example, that “rent is more important than apartment size” when choosing apartments. Even though linear models are heavily used in choice prediction, it has remained unclear whether criterion weights are connected to judgments of importance. A surprisingly common assumption is that a more important criterion tends to have a larger weight, as if weights and importance were equal, or at least heavily correlated. In the experiment, subjects provided pairwise judgments of importance for four criteria and made pairwise choices with apartments defined by these criteria. According to our results, Goldstein’s (1990) idea of connecting judgments of importance to impact is more meaningful than connecting them to weights. Impact as the product of AHP weights and coefficient of variation is the best definition for impact, when measured by correlation to the original judgments of importance.

Suggested Citation

  • Tommi Pajala & Pekka Korhonen & Jyrki Wallenius, 2019. "Judgments of importance revisited: What do they mean?," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 70(7), pages 1140-1148, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:taf:tjorxx:v:70:y:2019:i:7:p:1140-1148
    DOI: 10.1080/01605682.2018.1489346
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/01605682.2018.1489346
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/01605682.2018.1489346?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.

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. 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.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:taf:tjorxx:v:70:y:2019:i:7:p:1140-1148. 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: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/tjor .

    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.