IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ven/wpaper/201310.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Empirical properties of group preference aggregation methods employed in AHP. Theory and evidence

Author

Listed:
  • Michele Bernasconi

    (Department of Economics, University Of Venice C� Foscari)

  • Christine Choirat

    (Department of Quantitative Methods, School of Economics and Business Management, Universidad de Navarra.)

  • Raffaello Seri

    (Dipartimento di Economia, Universit� dell'Insubria.)

Abstract

We study various methods of aggregating individual judgments and individual priorities in group decision making with the AHP. The focus is on the empirical properties of the various methods, mainly on the extent to which the various aggregation methods represent an accurate approximation of the priority vector of interest. We identify five main classes of aggregation procedures which provide identical or very similar empirical expressions for the vectors of interest. We also propose a method to decompose in the AHP response matrix distortions due to random errors and perturbations caused by cognitive bias predicted by the mathematical psychology literature. We test the decomposition with experimental data and find that perturbations in group decision making caused by cognitive distortions are more important than those caused by random errors. We propose methods to correct systematic distortions.

Suggested Citation

  • Michele Bernasconi & Christine Choirat & Raffaello Seri, 2013. "Empirical properties of group preference aggregation methods employed in AHP. Theory and evidence," Working Papers 2013:10, Department of Economics, University of Venice "Ca' Foscari".
    • Handle: RePEc:ven:wpaper:2013:10
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.unive.it/web/fileadmin/user_upload/dipartimenti/DEC/doc/Pubblicazioni_scientifiche/working_papers/2013/WP_DSE_bernasconi_choirat_seri_10_13.pdf
    File Function: First version, 2013
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Aguaron, Juan & Moreno-Jimenez, Jose Maria, 2003. "The geometric consistency index: Approximated thresholds," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 147(1), pages 137-145, May.
    2. Thomas L. Saaty, 1986. "Axiomatic Foundation of the Analytic Hierarchy Process," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 32(7), pages 841-855, July.
    3. 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.
    4. Van Den Honert, R. C. & Lootsma, F. A., 1997. "Group preference aggregation in the multiplicative AHP The model of the group decision process and Pareto optimality," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 96(2), pages 363-370, January.
    5. Michele Bernasconi & Christine Choirat & Raffaello Seri, 2010. "The Analytic Hierarchy Process and the Theory of Measurement," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 56(4), pages 699-711, April.
    6. Aczel, J. & Alsina, C., 1986. "On synthesis of judgements," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 20(6), pages 333-339.
    7. J. M. Moreno-Jiménez & J. Aguarón & M. T. Escobar, 2008. "The Core of Consistency in AHP-Group Decision Making," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 17(3), pages 249-265, May.
    8. Aull-Hyde, Rhonda & Erdogan, Sevgi & Duke, Joshua M., 2006. "An experiment on the consistency of aggregated comparison matrices in AHP," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 171(1), pages 290-295, May.
    9. María Teresa Escobar & José María Moreno-jiménez, 2007. "Aggregation of Individual Preference Structures in Ahp-Group Decision Making," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 16(4), pages 287-301, July.
    10. Ramanathan, R. & Ganesh, L. S., 1994. "Group preference aggregation methods employed in AHP: An evaluation and an intrinsic process for deriving members' weightages," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 79(2), pages 249-265, December.
    11. Saaty, Thomas L., 2003. "Decision-making with the AHP: Why is the principal eigenvector necessary," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 145(1), pages 85-91, February.
    12. Vaidya, Omkarprasad S. & Kumar, Sushil, 2006. "Analytic hierarchy process: An overview of applications," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 169(1), pages 1-29, February.
    13. Escobar, M. T. & Aguaron, J. & Moreno-Jimenez, J. M., 2004. "A note on AHP group consistency for the row geometric mean priorization procedure," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 153(2), pages 318-322, March.
    14. Yoram Wind & Thomas L. Saaty, 1980. "Marketing Applications of the Analytic Hierarchy Process," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(7), pages 641-658, July.
    15. R.C. Van den Honert, 2001. "Decisional Power in Group Decision Making: A Note on the Allocation of Group Members' Weights in the Multiplicative AHP and SMART," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 10(3), pages 275-286, May.
    16. Saaty, Thomas L., 1990. "Eigenvector and logarithmic least squares," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 156-160, September.
    17. Lin, Robert & Lin, Jennifer Shu-Jen & Chang, Jason & Tang, Didos & Chao, Henry & Julian, Peter C, 2008. "Note on group consistency in analytic hierarchy process," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 190(3), pages 672-678, November.
    18. Xu, Z., 2000. "On consistency of the weighted geometric mean complex judgement matrix in AHP," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 126(3), pages 683-687, November.
    19. Michele Bernasconi & Christine Choirat & Raffaello Seri, 2009. "A re-examination of the algebraic properties of the AHP as a ratio-scaling technique," Working Papers 2009_23, Department of Economics, University of Venice "Ca' Foscari".
    20. Bolloju, N., 2001. "Aggregation of analytic hierarchy process models based on similarities in decision makers' preferences," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 128(3), pages 499-508, February.
    21. Forman, Ernest & Peniwati, Kirti, 1998. "Aggregating individual judgments and priorities with the analytic hierarchy process," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 108(1), pages 165-169, July.
    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. Jochen Wulf, 2020. "Development of an AHP hierarchy for managing omnichannel capabilities: a design science research approach," Business Research, Springer;German Academic Association for Business Research, vol. 13(1), pages 39-68, April.
    2. Amenta, Pietro & Lucadamo, Antonio & Marcarelli, Gabriella, 2021. "On the choice of weights for aggregating judgments in non-negotiable AHP group decision making," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 288(1), pages 294-301.
    3. Dokupilová Dušana & Baláž Vladimír & Kurincová Vladimíra Čavojová & Mikušková Eva Ballová & Gombitová Dagmar, 2020. "Identifying major policy challenges and policy interventions via expert methods : Application of the Delphi and AHP methods in preparation of the Partnership Agreement for the Slovak Republic in perio," Review of Economic Perspectives, Sciendo, vol. 20(3), pages 361-377, September.
    4. Tereza Aubrechtová & Eva Semančíková & Pavel Raška, 2020. "Formulation Matters! The Failure of Integrating Landscape Fragmentation Policy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(10), pages 1-21, May.
    5. Vladimír Baláž & Dušana Dokupilová & Richard Filčák, 2021. "Participatory multi-criteria methods for adaptation to climate change," Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Springer, vol. 26(4), pages 1-22, April.
    6. Laila Oubahman & Szabolcs Duleba, 2022. "A Comparative Analysis of Homogenous Groups’ Preferences by Using AIP and AIJ Group AHP-PROMETHEE Model," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(10), pages 1-18, May.
    7. Przybyła-Kasperek, Małgorzata & Wakulicz-Deja, Alicja, 2016. "The strength of coalition in a dispersed decision support system with negotiations," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 252(3), pages 947-968.
    8. de Luca, Stefano, 2014. "Public engagement in strategic transportation planning: An analytic hierarchy process based approach," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(C), pages 110-124.
    9. Hsu-Shih Shih, 2016. "A Mixed-Data Evaluation in Group TOPSIS with Differentiated Decision Power," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 25(3), pages 537-565, May.
    10. Dušana Dokupilová & Vladimíra Kurincová Čavojová & Vladimír Baláž & Eva Ballová Mikušková & Dagmar Gombitová, 2021. "Smart advice for better governance: applying expert methods to high-stakes decisions," DECISION: Official Journal of the Indian Institute of Management Calcutta, Springer;Indian Institute of Management Calcutta, vol. 48(3), pages 285-293, September.
    11. Alexandra Tsioulou & Joanna Faure Walker & Dexter Sumaylo Lo & Rebekah Yore, 2021. "A method for determining the suitability of schools as evacuation shelters and aid distribution hubs following disasters: case study from Cagayan de Oro, Philippines," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 105(2), pages 1835-1859, January.
    12. Xia, Meimei & Chen, Jian, 2015. "Multi-criteria group decision making based on bilateral agreements," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 240(3), pages 756-764.
    13. Jahangir Wasim & Vijay Vyas & Pietro Amenta & Antonio Lucadamo & Gabriella Marcarelli & Alessio Ishizaka, 2023. "Deriving the weights for aggregating judgments in a multi-group problem: an application to curriculum development in entrepreneurship," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 326(2), pages 853-877, July.
    14. Brunelli, Matteo & Fedrizzi, Michele, 2015. "Boundary properties of the inconsistency of pairwise comparisons in group decisions," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 240(3), pages 765-773.
    15. Sasaki, Yasuo, 2023. "Strategic manipulation in group decisions with pairwise comparisons: A game theoretical perspective," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 304(3), pages 1133-1139.
    16. Gagolewski, Marek, 2015. "Spread measures and their relation to aggregation functions," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 241(2), pages 469-477.

    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. Juan Aguarón & María Teresa Escobar & José María Moreno-Jiménez, 2016. "The precise consistency consensus matrix in a local AHP-group decision making context," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 245(1), pages 245-259, October.
    2. María Teresa Escobar & José María Moreno-jiménez, 2007. "Aggregation of Individual Preference Structures in Ahp-Group Decision Making," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 16(4), pages 287-301, July.
    3. Jerónimo Aznar & Francisco Guijarro & José Moreno-Jiménez, 2011. "Mixed valuation methods: a combined AHP-GP procedure for individual and group multicriteria agricultural valuation," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 190(1), pages 221-238, October.
    4. Wolfgang Ossadnik & Stefanie Schinke & Ralf H. Kaspar, 2016. "Group Aggregation Techniques for Analytic Hierarchy Process and Analytic Network Process: A Comparative Analysis," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 25(2), pages 421-457, March.
    5. Zhu, Bin & Xu, Zeshui, 2014. "Analytic hierarchy process-hesitant group decision making," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 239(3), pages 794-801.
    6. Aull-Hyde, Rhonda & Erdogan, Sevgi & Duke, Joshua M., 2006. "An experiment on the consistency of aggregated comparison matrices in AHP," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 171(1), pages 290-295, May.
    7. Dong, Qingxing & Cooper, Orrin, 2016. "A peer-to-peer dynamic adaptive consensus reaching model for the group AHP decision making," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 250(2), pages 521-530.
    8. Juan Aguarón & María Teresa Escobar & José María Moreno-Jiménez, 2023. "Reducing incompatibility in a local AHP-group decision making context," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 326(1), pages 1-26, July.
    9. S. Lipovetsky, 2009. "Global Priority Estimation in Multiperson Decision Making," Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications, Springer, vol. 140(1), pages 77-91, January.
    10. de Luca, Stefano, 2014. "Public engagement in strategic transportation planning: An analytic hierarchy process based approach," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(C), pages 110-124.
    11. Petra Grošelj & Špela Pezdevšek Malovrh & Lidija Zadnik Stirn, 2011. "Methods based on data envelopment analysis for deriving group priorities in analytic hierarchy process," 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. 19(3), pages 267-284, September.
    12. Jacinto González-Pachón & Carlos Romero, 2007. "Inferring consensus weights from pairwise comparison matrices without suitable properties," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 154(1), pages 123-132, October.
    13. Liu Fang & Peng Yanan & Zhang Weiguo & Pedrycz Witold, 2017. "On Consistency in AHP and Fuzzy AHP," Journal of Systems Science and Information, De Gruyter, vol. 5(2), pages 128-147, April.
    14. Gerda Ana Melnik-Leroy & Gintautas Dzemyda, 2021. "How to Influence the Results of MCDM?—Evidence of the Impact of Cognitive Biases," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 9(2), pages 1-25, January.
    15. Hsu-Shih Shih, 2016. "A Mixed-Data Evaluation in Group TOPSIS with Differentiated Decision Power," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 25(3), pages 537-565, May.
    16. Juan Aguarón & María Teresa Escobar & José María Moreno-Jiménez & Alberto Turón, 2019. "AHP-Group Decision Making Based on Consistency," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 7(3), pages 1-15, March.
    17. Cortés-Aldana, Félix Antonio & García-Melón, Mónica & Fernández-de-Lucio, Ignacio & Aragonés-Beltrán, Pablo & Poveda-Bautista, Rocío, 2009. "University objectives and socioeconomic results: A multicriteria measuring of alignment," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 199(3), pages 811-822, December.
    18. Manuel Salvador & Alfredo Altuzarra & Pilar Gargallo & José María Moreno-Jiménez, 2015. "A Bayesian Approach to Maximising Inner Compatibility in AHP-Systemic Decision Making," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 24(4), pages 655-673, July.
    19. Garbuzova-Schlifter, Maria & Madlener, Reinhard, 2016. "AHP-based risk analysis of energy performance contracting projects in Russia," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 559-581.
    20. Grošelj, Petra & Zadnik Stirn, Lidija, 2012. "Acceptable consistency of aggregated comparison matrices in analytic hierarchy process," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 223(2), pages 417-420.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    group decisions; matrix differentials; separable representations; cognitive distortions.;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C44 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric and Statistical Methods: Special Topics - - - Operations Research; Statistical Decision Theory

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:ven:wpaper:2013:10. 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: Sassano Sonia (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/dsvenit.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.