IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/envirb/v22y1995i1p21-34.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Can Decisionmakers Express Multiattribute Preferences Using AHP and MUT? An Experiment

Author

Listed:
  • S-K Lai

    (Department of Land Economics and Administration, National Chung Hsing University, Taipei, Taiwan ROC)

  • L D Hopkins

    (Department of Urban and Regional Planning, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL 61801, USA)

Abstract

In the research design, iteration between two multiattribute techniques is used to compare their ability to elicit preferences. Each subject used one technique, then a second, and iterated between the two. Previous judgments from each technique were presented as two anchors for each succeeding judgment. The final, converged judgment is an estimate of intended preferences, or at least of constructed preferences. The technique that in its first use yielded preferences closer to the converged preference is therefore the better technique. Three techniques (MUT, AHP, and AHP') were compared in two experiments. MUT was found to be more effective than AHP' and not significantly different from AHP. The results also imply that judgments of ratios between atrribute intervals are more difficult to make than judgments of equivalence of intervals.

Suggested Citation

  • S-K Lai & L D Hopkins, 1995. "Can Decisionmakers Express Multiattribute Preferences Using AHP and MUT? An Experiment," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 22(1), pages 21-34, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:envirb:v:22:y:1995:i:1:p:21-34
    DOI: 10.1068/b220021
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1068/b220021
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1068/b220021?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. Paul J. H. Schoemaker & C. Carter Waid, 1982. "An Experimental Comparison of Different Approaches to Determining Weights in Additive Utility Models," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 28(2), pages 182-196, February.
    2. Belton, Valerie, 1986. "A comparison of the analytic hierarchy process and a simple multi-attribute value function," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 26(1), pages 7-21, 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. Lai, S-K., 1995. "A preference-based interpretation of AHP," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 23(4), pages 453-462, August.
    2. Rotimi Cephas Oluwaseyitan & Haslinda Hashim & Raja Nerina Raja Yusof, 2018. "Determinants of Bank Selection: An International Student Perspective," International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, Human Resource Management Academic Research Society, International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, vol. 8(5), pages 741-761, May.

    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. Carmone, Frank J. & Kara, Ali & Zanakis, Stelios H., 1997. "A Monte Carlo investigation of incomplete pairwise comparison matrices in AHP," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 102(3), pages 538-553, November.
    2. Corner, J. L. & Buchanan, J. T., 1997. "Capturing decision maker preference: Experimental comparison of decision analysis and MCDM techniques," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 98(1), pages 85-97, April.
    3. 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.
    4. Gomez-Limon, J.A. & Atance, I., 2004. "Identification of public objectives related to agricultural sector support," Journal of Policy Modeling, Elsevier, vol. 26(8-9), pages 1045-1071, December.
    5. José A. Gómez-Limón & Ignacio Atance, 2004. "Identification of Public Objectives Related to Agricultural Sector Support," Economic Working Papers at Centro de Estudios Andaluces E2004/57, Centro de Estudios Andaluces.
    6. S-K Lai & L D Hopkins, 1989. "The Meanings of Trade-Offs in Multiattribute Evaluation Methods: A Comparison," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 16(2), pages 155-170, June.
    7. Marttunen, Mika & Belton, Valerie & Lienert, Judit, 2018. "Are objectives hierarchy related biases observed in practice? A meta-analysis of environmental and energy applications of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 265(1), pages 178-194.
    8. Bowen, William M., 1995. "A Thurstonian comparison of the analytic hierarchy process and probabilistic multidimensional scaling through application to the nuclear waste site selection decision," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 151-163, June.
    9. Risto Lahdelma & Pekka Salminen, 2001. "SMAA-2: Stochastic Multicriteria Acceptability Analysis for Group Decision Making," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 49(3), pages 444-454, June.
    10. Zanakis, Stelios H. & Mandakovic, Tomislav & Gupta, Sushil K. & Sahay, Sundeep & Hong, Sungwan, 1995. "A review of program evaluation and fund allocation methods within the service and government sectors," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 29(1), pages 59-79, March.
    11. Hanyu Lu & Lufei Huang, 2021. "Optimization of Shore Power Deployment in Green Ports Considering Government Subsidies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-14, February.
    12. Ioannis Sitaridis & Fotis Kitsios, 2020. "Competitiveness analysis and evaluation of entrepreneurial ecosystems: a multi-criteria approach," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 294(1), pages 377-399, November.
    13. 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.
    14. T Kainulainen & P Leskinen & P Korhonen & A Haara & T Hujala, 2009. "A statistical approach to assessing interval scale preferences in discrete choice problems," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 60(2), pages 252-258, February.
    15. Greco, Salvatore, 1997. "A new PCCA method: IDRA," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 98(3), pages 587-601, May.
    16. Sureeyatanapas, Panitas & Sriwattananusart, Kawinpob & Niyamosoth, Thanawath & Sessomboon, Weerapat & Arunyanart, Sirawadee, 2018. "Supplier selection towards uncertain and unavailable information: An extension of TOPSIS method," Operations Research Perspectives, Elsevier, vol. 5(C), pages 69-79.
    17. Tavana, M. & Kennedy, D. T. & Joglekar, P., 1996. "A group decision support framework for consensus ranking of technical manager candidates," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 24(5), pages 523-538, October.
    18. Jay Simon, 2020. "Weight Approximation for Spatial Outcomes," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(14), pages 1-18, July.
    19. Bottomley, Paul A. & Doyle, John R., 2001. "A comparison of three weight elicitation methods: good, better, and best," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 29(6), pages 553-560, December.
    20. Iwasaki, S & Tone, K, 1998. "A Search Model with Subjective Judgments: Auditing of Incorrect Tax Declarations," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 26(2), pages 249-261, April.

    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:sae:envirb:v:22:y:1995:i:1:p:21-34. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.