IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/h/spr/lnopch/978-3-030-89795-6_1.html
   My bibliography  Save this book chapter

The Balancing Role of Best and Worst in Best-Worst Method

In: Advances in Best-Worst Method

Author

Listed:
  • Jafar Rezaei

    (Delft University of Technology)

Abstract

Best-Worst Method (BWM) is a pairwise comparison-based multi-criteria decision-making method to elicit the relative importance of the criteria (and alternatives) from a decision-maker. While most elicitation methods are based on only one reference point, BWM is based on two reference points (the most important: best; and the least important: worst) which are chosen by the decision-maker and used to conduct the pairwise comparisons. This mechanism is a salient feature of BWM that is rooted from behavioral decision-making theories and leads to more reliable results. In this study, experimental analysis is used to show how the use of these two reference points could mitigate possible anchoring bias which is inherent in judgments provided by decision-makers. First, three hypotheses are formulated to compare the weights coming from BWM with the weights calculated based on only one reference point. Two experimental analyses are used to test the hypotheses. The results clearly show that using one reference point leads to anchoring bias. The biases created by the two reference points are in opposite direction. This implies that using the two reference points in BWM optimization model could cancel out the impact of anchoring bias.

Suggested Citation

  • Jafar Rezaei, 2022. "The Balancing Role of Best and Worst in Best-Worst Method," Lecture Notes in Operations Research, in: Jafar Rezaei & Matteo Brunelli & Majid Mohammadi (ed.), Advances in Best-Worst Method, pages 1-15, Springer.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:lnopch:978-3-030-89795-6_1
    DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-89795-6_1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    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:lnopch:978-3-030-89795-6_1. 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: 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.