IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/annopr/v245y2016i1d10.1007_s10479-014-1767-3.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How relevant is the lack of reciprocity in pairwise comparisons? An experiment with AHP

Author

Listed:
  • Pedro Linares

    (Universidad Pontificia Comillas
    Harvard Kennedy School
    Economics for Energy)

  • Sara Lumbreras

    (Universidad Pontificia Comillas)

  • Alberto Santamaría

    (Universidad Pontificia Comillas)

  • Andrea Veiga

    (Universidad Pontificia Comillas)

Abstract

Most pairwise comparison (PC) methods typically require the explicit elicitation of only half of the comparisons, and infer the rest by assuming reciprocity in the decision maker’s comparisons. However, this may imply losing useful information contained in the additional comparisons that could be made, and which might be different from the first ones. This study assesses how relevant the lack of reciprocity may be in an experimental setting, and to what extent the information included in the additional comparisons may influence results. Our experiment shows that decision makers display substantial levels of irreciprocity and inconsistency, and that they generally prefer preference vectors calculated without assuming reciprocity in their comparisons. According to our results, our main conclusion is that, in general, decision makers should be requested all the comparisons in a PC matrix.

Suggested Citation

  • Pedro Linares & Sara Lumbreras & Alberto Santamaría & Andrea Veiga, 2016. "How relevant is the lack of reciprocity in pairwise comparisons? An experiment with AHP," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 245(1), pages 227-244, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:annopr:v:245:y:2016:i:1:d:10.1007_s10479-014-1767-3
    DOI: 10.1007/s10479-014-1767-3
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10479-014-1767-3
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10479-014-1767-3?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. Fishburn, Peter C & LaValle, Irving H, 1988. "Context-Dependent Choice with Nonlinear and Nontransitive Preferences," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 56(5), pages 1221-1239, September.
    2. J. Fülöp & W. Koczkodaj & S. Szarek, 2012. "On some convexity properties of the Least Squares Method for pairwise comparisons matrices without the reciprocity condition," Journal of Global Optimization, Springer, vol. 54(4), pages 689-706, December.
    3. Gonzalez-Pachon, Jacinto & Romero, Carlos, 2004. "A method for dealing with inconsistencies in pairwise comparisons," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 158(2), pages 351-361, October.
    4. Hovanov, Nikolai V. & Kolari, James W. & Sokolov, Mikhail V., 2008. "Deriving weights from general pairwise comparison matrices," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 55(2), pages 205-220, March.
    5. Linares, Pedro & Romero, Carlos, 2002. "Aggregation of preferences in an environmental economics context: a goal-programming approach," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 30(2), pages 89-95, April.
    6. Yoram Wind & Thomas L. Saaty, 1980. "Marketing Applications of the Analytic Hierarchy Process," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(7), pages 641-658, July.
    7. Saaty, Thomas L., 1994. "Highlights and critical points in the theory and application of the Analytic Hierarchy Process," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 74(3), pages 426-447, May.
    8. Linares, Pedro, 2009. "Are inconsistent decisions better? An experiment with pairwise comparisons," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 193(2), pages 492-498, March.
    9. Slovic, Paul & Lichtenstein, Sarah, 1983. "Preference Reversals: A Broader Perspective," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 73(4), pages 596-605, September.
    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. Pietro Amenta & Alessio Ishizaka & Antonio Lucadamo & Gabriella Marcarelli & Vijay Vyas, 2020. "Computing a common preference vector in a complex multi-actor and multi-group decision system in Analytic Hierarchy Process context," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 284(1), pages 33-62, January.

    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. Linares, Pedro, 2009. "Are inconsistent decisions better? An experiment with pairwise comparisons," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 193(2), pages 492-498, March.
    2. 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.
    3. Matteo Brunelli & Luisa Canal & Michele Fedrizzi, 2013. "Inconsistency indices for pairwise comparison matrices: a numerical study," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 211(1), pages 493-509, December.
    4. Alessio Ishizaka & Sajid Siraj, 2020. "Interactive consistency correction in the analytic hierarchy process to preserve ranks," Decisions in Economics and Finance, Springer;Associazione per la Matematica, vol. 43(2), pages 443-464, December.
    5. Brandt, Patric & Kvakić, Marko & Butterbach-Bahl, Klaus & Rufino, Mariana C., 2017. "How to target climate-smart agriculture? Concept and application of the consensus-driven decision support framework “targetCSA”," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 234-245.
    6. Gebrezgabher, Solomie A. & Meuwissen, Miranda P.M. & Oude Lansink, Alfons G.J.M., 2014. "A multiple criteria decision making approach to manure management systems in the Netherlands," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 232(3), pages 643-653.
    7. Banai, Reza, 2010. "Evaluation of land use-transportation systems with the Analytic Network Process," The Journal of Transport and Land Use, Center for Transportation Studies, University of Minnesota, vol. 3(1), pages 85-112.
    8. Chao, Ching-Cheng & Yu, Po-Cheng, 2013. "Quantitative evaluation model of air cargo competitiveness and comparative analysis of major Asia-Pacific airports," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(C), pages 318-326.
    9. József Temesi, 2019. "An interactive approach to determine the elements of a pairwise comparison matrix," 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. 27(2), pages 533-549, June.
    10. Sato, Yuji, 2012. "Optimal budget planning for investment in safety measures of a chemical company," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 140(2), pages 579-585.
    11. Paul Thaddeus Kazibudzki, 2016. "An examination of performance relations among selected consistency measures for simulated pairwise judgments," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 244(2), pages 525-544, September.
    12. Dong, Yucheng & Xu, Yinfeng & Li, Hongyi & Dai, Min, 2008. "A comparative study of the numerical scales and the prioritization methods in AHP," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 186(1), pages 229-242, April.
    13. Benítez-Fernández, Amalia & Ruiz, Francisco, 2020. "A Meta-Goal Programming approach to cardinal preferences aggregation in multicriteria problems," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 94(C).
    14. P Ji & R Jiang, 2003. "Scale transitivity in the AHP," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 54(8), pages 896-905, August.
    15. Abrahamsen, Eirik Bjorheim & Milazzo, Maria Francesca & Selvik, Jon T. & Asche, Frank & Abrahamsen, HÃ¥kon Bjorheim, 2020. "Prioritising investments in safety measures in the chemical industry by using the Analytic Hierarchy Process," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 198(C).
    16. 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.
    17. Phillips, Jason, 2013. "Determining the sustainability of large-scale photovoltaic solar power plants," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 27(C), pages 435-444.
    18. Ergu, Daji & Kou, Gang & Peng, Yi & Shi, Yong, 2011. "A simple method to improve the consistency ratio of the pair-wise comparison matrix in ANP," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 213(1), pages 246-259, August.
    19. Theißen, Sebastian & Spinler, Stefan, 2014. "Strategic analysis of manufacturer-supplier partnerships: An ANP model for collaborative CO2 reduction management," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 233(2), pages 383-397.
    20. Sándor Bozóki & Linda Dezső & Attila Poesz & József Temesi, 2013. "Analysis of pairwise comparison matrices: an empirical research," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 211(1), pages 511-528, December.

    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:annopr:v:245:y:2016:i:1:d:10.1007_s10479-014-1767-3. 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: 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.