IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wut/journl/v34y2024i3p287-323id15.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Decision-makers’ behavioral characteristics and multiple criteria decision aiding. Impact of decision-making style and experience on methods’ use, evaluation, and recommendation

Author

Listed:
  • Tomasz Wachowicz
  • Ewa Roszkowska
  • Marzena Filipowicz-Chomko

Abstract

The study aims to identify relationships among selected behavioral characteristics of decision-makers (DMs), i.e., experience in making complex decisions, decision-making style, and ability to use various multiple criteria decision-aiding (MCDA) methods coherently, and their impact on the evaluation of the latter functionality and recommendations for future use. The relationships were verified using experimental data through a structural equation model (SEM) and cluster analysis for three MCDA methods, i.e., AHP, SMART, and TOPSIS. One of the strongest effects identified by SEM was observed between coherence in methods’ use and the DM’s opinion on their functionality. DM’s satisfaction and future willingness to use MCDA tools are related to the positive experience gained from using these tools in advance. Decision-making styles shape method selection, with TOPSIS favored by highly experienced DMs, SMART by highly rational, and AHP by those with low experience and a rational approach.

Suggested Citation

  • Tomasz Wachowicz & Ewa Roszkowska & Marzena Filipowicz-Chomko, 2024. "Decision-makers’ behavioral characteristics and multiple criteria decision aiding. Impact of decision-making style and experience on methods’ use, evaluation, and recommendation," Operations Research and Decisions, Wroclaw University of Science and Technology, Faculty of Management, vol. 34(3), pages 287-323.
    • Handle: RePEc:wut:journl:v:34:y:2024:i:3:p:287-323:id:15
    DOI: 10.37190/ord2403015
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ord.pwr.edu.pl/assets/papers_archive/ord2024vol34no3_15.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.37190/ord2403015?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Wątróbski, Jarosław & Jankowski, Jarosław & Ziemba, Paweł & Karczmarczyk, Artur & Zioło, Magdalena, 2019. "Generalised framework for multi-criteria method selection," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 107-124.
    2. Davis, Donald L & Elnicki, Richard A, 1984. "User cognitive types for decision support systems," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 12(6), pages 601-614.
    3. Ali Emrouznejad & Marianna Marra, 2017. "The state of the art development of AHP (1979–2017): a literature review with a social network analysis," International Journal of Production Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 55(22), pages 6653-6675, November.
    4. 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.
    5. Benbasat, I & Dexter, As, 1982. "Individual-Differences In The Use Of Decision Support Aids," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 20(1), pages 1-11.
    6. Gerald W. Evans, 1984. "An Overview of Techniques for Solving Multiobjective Mathematical Programs," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 30(11), pages 1268-1282, November.
    7. Ishizaka, Alessio & Siraj, Sajid, 2018. "Are multi-criteria decision-making tools useful? An experimental comparative study of three methods," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 264(2), pages 462-471.
    8. Thomas L. Saaty & Daji Ergu, 2015. "When is a Decision-Making Method Trustworthy? Criteria for Evaluating Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Methods," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 14(06), pages 1171-1187, November.
    9. repec:cup:judgdm:v:10:y:2015:i:1:p:115-122 is not listed on IDEAS
    10. Remus, William, 1986. "Graduate students as surrogates for managers in experiments on business decision making," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 14(1), pages 19-25, February.
    11. Rohail Ashraf & Dwight Merunka, 2017. "The use and misuse of student samples: An empirical investigation of European marketing research," Post-Print hal-01794416, HAL.
    12. Crossley, Craig D. & Highhouse, Scott, 2005. "Relation of job search and choice process with subsequent satisfaction," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 26(2), pages 255-268, April.
    13. Cinelli, Marco & Kadziński, Miłosz & Gonzalez, Michael & Słowiński, Roman, 2020. "How to support the application of multiple criteria decision analysis? Let us start with a comprehensive taxonomy," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 96(C).
    14. repec:hal:wpaper:hal-00874292 is not listed on IDEAS
    15. Francesco Ciardiello & Andrea Genovese, 2023. "A comparison between TOPSIS and SAW methods," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 325(2), pages 967-994, June.
    16. repec:cup:judgdm:v:2:y:2007:i::p:342-350 is not listed on IDEAS
    17. Al-Shemmeri, Tarik & Al-Kloub, Bashar & Pearman, Alan, 1997. "Model choice in multicriteria decision aid," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 97(3), pages 550-560, March.
    18. Aloysius, John A. & Davis, Fred D. & Wilson, Darryl D. & Ross Taylor, A. & Kottemann, Jeffrey E., 2006. "User acceptance of multi-criteria decision support systems: The impact of preference elicitation techniques," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 169(1), pages 273-285, February.
    19. Anne-Marie Aish & Karl Jöreskog, 1990. "A panel model for political efficacy and responsiveness: an application of LISREL 7 with weighted least squares," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 24(4), pages 405-426, November.
    20. Thomas P. Novak & Donna L. Hoffman, 2009. "The Fit of Thinking Style and Situation: New Measures of Situation-Specific Experiential and Rational Cognition," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 36(1), pages 56-72, June.
    21. Lu, Hsi-Peng & Yu, Huei-Ju & Lu, Simon S. K., 2001. "The effects of cognitive style and model type on DSS acceptance: An empirical study," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 131(3), pages 649-663, June.
    22. Stacie Petter & William DeLone & Ephraim McLean, 2008. "Measuring information systems success: models, dimensions, measures, and interrelationships," European Journal of Information Systems, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 17(3), pages 236-263, June.
    23. Bernard Roy & Roman Slowinski, 2013. "Questions guiding the choice of a multicriteria decision aiding method," Post-Print hal-00874292, HAL.
    24. Ho, William & Ma, Xin, 2018. "The state-of-the-art integrations and applications of the analytic hierarchy process," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 267(2), pages 399-414.
    25. Van Bruggen, Gerrit & Wierenga, Berend, 2001. "Matching management support systems and managerial problem-solving modes:: The key to effective decision support," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 19(3), pages 228-238, June.
    26. Zanakis, Stelios H. & Solomon, Anthony & Wishart, Nicole & Dublish, Sandipa, 1998. "Multi-attribute decision making: A simulation comparison of select methods," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 107(3), pages 507-529, June.
    27. Gilberto Montibeller & Detlof von Winterfeldt, 2015. "Cognitive and Motivational Biases in Decision and Risk Analysis," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(7), pages 1230-1251, July.
    28. 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.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Marttunen, Mika & Haara, Arto & Hjerppe, Turo & Kurttila, Mikko & Liesiö, Juuso & Mustajoki, Jyri & Saarikoski, Heli & Tolvanen, Anne, 2023. "Parallel and comparative use of three multicriteria decision support methods in an environmental portfolio problem," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 307(2), pages 842-859.
    2. Wątróbski, Jarosław & Jankowski, Jarosław & Ziemba, Paweł & Karczmarczyk, Artur & Zioło, Magdalena, 2019. "Generalised framework for multi-criteria method selection," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 107-124.
    3. Eduardo Fernandez & Jorge Navarro & Rafael Olmedo, 2018. "Characterization of the Effectiveness of Several Outranking-Based Multi-Criteria Sorting Methods," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 17(04), pages 1047-1084, July.
    4. Mimica R. Milošević & Dušan M. Milošević & Ana D. Stanojević & Dragan M. Stević & Dušan J. Simjanović, 2021. "Fuzzy and Interval AHP Approaches in Sustainable Management for the Architectural Heritage in Smart Cities," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 9(4), pages 1-29, February.
    5. Francesco Ciardiello & Andrea Genovese, 2023. "A comparison between TOPSIS and SAW methods," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 325(2), pages 967-994, June.
    6. Cinelli, Marco & Kadziński, Miłosz & Gonzalez, Michael & Słowiński, Roman, 2020. "How to support the application of multiple criteria decision analysis? Let us start with a comprehensive taxonomy," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 96(C).
    7. Franco, L. Alberto & Hämäläinen, Raimo P. & Rouwette, Etiënne A.J.A. & Leppänen, Ilkka, 2021. "Taking stock of behavioural OR: A review of behavioural studies with an intervention focus," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 293(2), pages 401-418.
    8. Xidonas, Panos & Thomakos, Dimitris & Samitas, Aristeidis, 2025. "On the integration of multiple criteria decision aiding and forecasting: Does it create value in portfolio selection?," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 321(2), pages 516-528.
    9. Roszkowska Ewa & Wachowicz Tomasz, 2019. "The Impact of Decision-Making Profiles on the Consistency of Rankings Obtained by Means of Selected Multiple Criteria Decision-Aiding Methods," Econometrics. Advances in Applied Data Analysis, Sciendo, vol. 23(2), pages 1-14, June.
    10. Cinelli, Marco & Kadziński, Miłosz & Miebs, Grzegorz & Gonzalez, Michael & Słowiński, Roman, 2022. "Recommending multiple criteria decision analysis methods with a new taxonomy-based decision support system," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 302(2), pages 633-651.
    11. Panos Xidonas & Ilias Lekkos & Charis Giannakidis & Christos Staikouras, 2023. "Multicriteria security evaluation: does it cost to be traditional?," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 323(1), pages 301-330, April.
    12. Haddad, M. & Sanders, D. & Tewkesbury, G., 2020. "Selecting a discrete multiple criteria decision making method for Boeing to rank four global market regions," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 134(C), pages 1-15.
    13. Haddad, Malik & Sanders, David, 2018. "Selection of discrete multiple criteria decision making methods in the presence of risk and uncertainty," Operations Research Perspectives, Elsevier, vol. 5(C), pages 357-370.
    14. Govindan, Kannan & Jepsen, Martin Brandt, 2016. "ELECTRE: A comprehensive literature review on methodologies and applications," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 250(1), pages 1-29.
    15. Bartłomiej Kizielewicz & Jarosław Wątróbski & Wojciech Sałabun, 2020. "Identification of Relevant Criteria Set in the MCDA Process—Wind Farm Location Case Study," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(24), pages 1-40, December.
    16. Ferretti, Valentina & Geneletti, Davide, 2020. "Does the spatial representation affect criteria weights in environmental decision-making? Insights from a behavioral experiment," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 97(C).
    17. Mulliner, Emma & Malys, Naglis & Maliene, Vida, 2016. "Comparative analysis of MCDM methods for the assessment of sustainable housing affordability," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 59(PB), pages 146-156.
    18. Katerina Kabassi, 2021. "Comparing Multi-Criteria Decision Making Models for Evaluating Environmental Education Programs," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(20), pages 1-17, October.
    19. Colorni, Alberto & Tsoukiàs, Alexis, 2024. "What is a decision problem?," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 314(1), pages 255-267.
    20. Siebert, Johannes & Kunz, Reinhard, 2016. "Developing and validating the multidimensional proactive decision-making scale," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 249(3), pages 864-877.

    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:wut:journl:v:34:y:2024:i:3:p:287-323:id:15. 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: Adam Kasperski (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/iopwrpl.html .

    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.