IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ejores/v258y2017i3p993-1003.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How well does the OWA operator represent real preferences?

Author

Listed:
  • Reimann, Olivier
  • Schumacher, Christian
  • Vetschera, Rudolf

Abstract

We present the results of an empirical study, in which we analyze the ability of the Ordered Weighted Average (OWA) operator to model actual preferences in a multi-attribute ranking task. We compare the OWA to a competing model (Simple Additive Weighting SAW), and we also study whether its characteristic feature, the ability to represent different attitudes toward compensation among attributes, is reflected in the preferences provided by subjects. We find that in general, the OWA model fits slightly less well to empirical data. Subjects whose preferences are better explained by the SAW model are also more consistent in their choice behavior. Our results furthermore indicate that preferences of most subjects are not fully compensatory. Thus the ability of the OWA operator to represent different attitudes toward compensation can be a useful feature in modeling actual preferences. The structure of the weights estimated for the OWA operator also suggests that it might provide a good approximation to certain types of decision heuristics.

Suggested Citation

  • Reimann, Olivier & Schumacher, Christian & Vetschera, Rudolf, 2017. "How well does the OWA operator represent real preferences?," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 258(3), pages 993-1003.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ejores:v:258:y:2017:i:3:p:993-1003
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ejor.2016.09.037
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0377221716307895
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ejor.2016.09.037?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. Bous, Géraldine & Fortemps, Philippe & Glineur, François & Pirlot, Marc, 2010. "ACUTA: A novel method for eliciting additive value functions on the basis of holistic preference statements," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 206(2), pages 435-444, October.
    2. Tversky, Amos & Slovic, Paul & Kahneman, Daniel, 1990. "The Causes of Preference Reversal," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 80(1), pages 204-217, March.
    3. Kadziński, Miłosz & Greco, Salvatore & Słowiński, Roman, 2012. "Selection of a representative value function in robust multiple criteria ranking and choice," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 217(3), pages 541-553.
    4. Ulrich Hoffrage & Torsten Reimer, 2004. "Models of Bounded Rationality: The Approach of Fast and Frugal Heuristics," management revue. Socio-economic Studies, Rainer Hampp Verlag, vol. 15(4), pages 437-459.
    5. Byeong Seok Ahn, 2014. "Developing Group Ordered Weighted Averaging Operator Weights for Group Decision Support," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 23(5), pages 1127-1143, September.
    6. Jean-François Bonnefon & Didier Dubois & Hélène Fargier & Sylvie Leblois, 2008. "Qualitative Heuristics For Balancing the Pros and Cons," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 65(1), pages 71-95, August.
    7. Han Bleichrodt & Jose Maria Abellan-Perpiñan & Jose Luis Pinto-Prades & Ildefonso Mendez-Martinez, 2007. "Resolving Inconsistencies in Utility Measurement Under Risk: Tests of Generalizations of Expected Utility," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 53(3), pages 469-482, March.
    8. Joost M.E. Pennings & Ale Smidts, 2000. "Assessing the Construct Validity of Risk Attitude," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 46(10), pages 1337-1348, October.
    9. B. Ahn & S. Choi, 2012. "Aggregation of ordinal data using ordered weighted averaging operator weights," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 201(1), pages 1-16, December.
    10. repec:cup:judgdm:v:4:y:2009:i:5:p:419-428 is not listed on IDEAS
    11. Vetschera, Rudolf & Weitzl, Wolfgang & Wolfsteiner, Elisabeth, 2014. "Implausible alternatives in eliciting multi-attribute value functions," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 234(1), pages 221-230.
    12. Jacquet-Lagreze, Eric & Siskos, Yannis, 2001. "Preference disaggregation: 20 years of MCDA experience," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 130(2), pages 233-245, April.
    13. Renaud, Jean & Levrat, Eric & Fonteix, Christian, 2008. "Weights determination of OWA operators by parametric identification," Mathematics and Computers in Simulation (MATCOM), Elsevier, vol. 77(5), pages 499-511.
    14. 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.
    15. Christopher W. Allinson & John Hayes, 1996. "The Cognitive Style Index: A Measure of Intuition‐Analysis For Organizational Research," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 33(1), pages 119-135, January.
    16. Paul J. H. Schoemaker, 1990. "Are Risk-Attitudes Related Across Domains and Response Modes?," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 36(12), pages 1451-1463, December.
    17. Ulrich Hoffrage & Torsten Reimer, 2004. "Models of Bounded Rationality: The Approach of Fast and Frugal Heuristics," management revue - Socio-Economic Studies, Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG, vol. 15(4), pages 437-459.
    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. Wu, Zhibin & Huang, Shuai & Xu, Jiuping, 2019. "Multi-stage optimization models for individual consistency and group consensus with preference relations," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 275(1), pages 182-194.
    2. Peng Li & Ju Liu & Cuiping Wei, 2019. "A Dynamic Decision Making Method Based on GM(1,1) Model with Pythagorean Fuzzy Numbers for Selecting Waste Disposal Enterprises," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(20), pages 1-19, October.
    3. Emili Vizuete-Luciano & Sefa Boria-Reverter & José M. Merigó-Lindahl & Anna Maria Gil-Lafuente & Maria Luisa Solé-Moro, 2021. "Fuzzy Branch-and-Bound Algorithm with OWA Operators in the Case of Consumer Decision Making," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 9(23), pages 1-16, November.

    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. Kadziński, Miłosz & Wójcik, Michał & Ciomek, Krzysztof, 2022. "Review and experimental comparison of ranking and choice procedures for constructing a univocal recommendation in a preference disaggregation setting," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 113(C).
    2. Hurson, Christian & Siskos, Yannis, 2014. "A synergy of multicriteria techniques to assess additive value models," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 238(2), pages 540-551.
    3. Sobrie, Olivier & Gillis, Nicolas & Mousseau, Vincent & Pirlot, Marc, 2018. "UTA-poly and UTA-splines: Additive value functions with polynomial marginals," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 264(2), pages 405-418.
    4. Ghaderi, Mohammad & Ruiz, Francisco & Agell, Núria, 2017. "A linear programming approach for learning non-monotonic additive value functions in multiple criteria decision aiding," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 259(3), pages 1073-1084.
    5. 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.
    6. Vetschera, Rudolf, 2017. "Deriving rankings from incomplete preference information: A comparison of different approaches," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 258(1), pages 244-253.
    7. Bouchery, Yann & Ghaffari, Asma & Jemai, Zied & Dallery, Yves, 2012. "Including sustainability criteria into inventory models," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 222(2), pages 229-240.
    8. Christopher Schwand & Rudolf Vetschera & Lea Wakolbinger, 2010. "The influence of probabilities on the response mode bias in utility elicitation," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 69(3), pages 395-416, September.
    9. Zheng, Jun & Lienert, Judit, 2018. "Stakeholder interviews with two MAVT preference elicitation philosophies in a Swiss water infrastructure decision: Aggregation using SWING-weighting and disaggregation using UTAGMS," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 267(1), pages 273-287.
    10. Wachowicz, Tomasz & Roszkowska, Ewa, 2022. "Can holistic declaration of preferences improve a negotiation offer scoring system?," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 299(3), pages 1018-1032.
    11. Deparis, Stéphane & Mousseau, Vincent & Öztürk, Meltem & Huron, Caroline, 2015. "The effect of bi-criteria conflict on matching-elicited preferences," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 242(3), pages 951-959.
    12. Ashok Chakravarti, 2012. "Institutions, Economic Performance and the Visible Hand," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 14751.
    13. Attema, Arthur E. & Brouwer, Werner B.F. & l’Haridon, Olivier & Pinto, Jose Luis, 2016. "An elicitation of utility for quality of life under prospect theory," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 121-134.
    14. Ding, David K. & Charoenwong, Charlie & Seetoh, Raymond, 2004. "Prospect theory, analyst forecasts, and stock returns," Journal of Multinational Financial Management, Elsevier, vol. 14(4-5), pages 425-442.
    15. Khaled Belahcène & Vincent Mousseau & Wassila Ouerdane & Marc Pirlot & Olivier Sobrie, 2023. "Multiple criteria sorting models and methods—Part I: survey of the literature," 4OR, Springer, vol. 21(1), pages 1-46, March.
    16. Attema, Arthur E. & Brouwer, Werner B.F. & l’Haridon, Olivier, 2013. "Prospect theory in the health domain: A quantitative assessment," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(6), pages 1057-1065.
    17. feng dai & Jianqiang Liu, 2004. "Development Power and Derivative Process: A Mode and Theory for Macroeconomy Analysis," Macroeconomics 0403015, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    18. Gehrlein, Jonas & Miebs, Grzegorz & Brunelli, Matteo & Kadziński, Miłosz, 2023. "An active preference learning approach to aid the selection of validators in blockchain environments," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 118(C).
    19. MinJae Lee & JinKyu Lee, 2012. "The impact of information security failure on customer behaviors: A study on a large-scale hacking incident on the internet," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 14(2), pages 375-393, April.
    20. Moyal, Adiel & Schurr, Amos, 2022. "The effect of deliberate ignorance and choice procedure on pro-environmental decisions," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 200(C).

    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:eee:ejores:v:258:y:2017:i:3:p:993-1003. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/eor .

    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.