IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ejores/v169y2006i1p273-285.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

User acceptance of multi-criteria decision support systems: The impact of preference elicitation techniques

Author

Listed:
  • Aloysius, John A.
  • Davis, Fred D.
  • Wilson, Darryl D.
  • Ross Taylor, A.
  • Kottemann, Jeffrey E.

Abstract

No abstract is available for this item.

Suggested Citation

  • Aloysius, John A. & Davis, Fred D. & Wilson, Darryl D. & Ross Taylor, A. & Kottemann, Jeffrey E., 2006. "User acceptance of multi-criteria decision support systems: The impact of preference elicitation techniques," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 169(1), pages 273-285, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ejores:v:169:y:2006:i:1:p:273-285
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0377-2217(04)00434-5
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    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. Buchanan, J. T. & Daellenbach, H. G., 1987. "A comparative evaluation of interactive solution methods for multiple objective decision models," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 29(3), pages 353-359, June.
    2. Kottemann, Jeffrey E. & Davis, Fred D. & Remus, William E., 1994. "Computer-Assisted Decision Making: Performance, Beliefs, and the Illusion of Control," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 57(1), pages 26-37, January.
    3. Scholten, Marc, 2002. "Conflict-mediated choice," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 88(2), pages 683-718, July.
    4. Eric J. Johnson & John W. Payne, 1985. "Effort and Accuracy in Choice," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 31(4), pages 395-414, April.
    5. Jyrki Wallenius, 1975. "Comparative Evaluation of Some Interactive Approaches to Multicriterion Optimization," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 21(12), pages 1387-1396, August.
    6. Timmermans, Danielle & Vlek, Charles, 1994. "An Evaluation Study of the Effectiveness of Multi-attribute Decision Support as a Function of Problem Complexity," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 59(1), pages 75-92, July.
    7. Fred D. Davis & Richard P. Bagozzi & Paul R. Warshaw, 1989. "User Acceptance of Computer Technology: A Comparison of Two Theoretical Models," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 35(8), pages 982-1003, August.
    8. Shugan, Steven M, 1980. "The Cost of Thinking," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 7(2), pages 99-111, Se.
    9. Yoram Wind & Thomas L. Saaty, 1980. "Marketing Applications of the Analytic Hierarchy Process," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(7), pages 641-658, July.
    10. Gerald W. Evans, 1984. "An Overview of Techniques for Solving Multiobjective Mathematical Programs," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 30(11), pages 1268-1282, November.
    11. Stanley Zionts & Jyrki Wallenius, 1983. "An Interactive Multiple Objective Linear Programming Method for a Class of Underlying Nonlinear Utility Functions," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 29(5), pages 519-529, May.
    12. Moshkovich, Helen M. & Mechitov, Alexander I. & Olson, David L., 2002. "Ordinal judgments in multiattribute decision analysis," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 137(3), pages 625-641, March.
    13. Philippe Delquié, 2003. "Optimal Conflict in Preference Assessment," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 49(1), pages 102-115, January.
    14. James S. Dyer & Peter C. Fishburn & Ralph E. Steuer & Jyrki Wallenius & Stanley Zionts, 1992. "Multiple Criteria Decision Making, Multiattribute Utility Theory: The Next Ten Years," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 38(5), pages 645-654, May.
    15. Siskos, Y. & Spyridakos, A., 1999. "Intelligent multicriteria decision support: Overview and perspectives," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 113(2), pages 236-246, March.
    16. Brockhoff, Klaus, 1985. "Experimental test of MCDM algorithms in a modular approach," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 22(2), pages 159-166, November.
    17. Viswanath Venkatesh & Fred D. Davis, 2000. "A Theoretical Extension of the Technology Acceptance Model: Four Longitudinal Field Studies," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 46(2), pages 186-204, February.
    18. Subimal Chatterjee & Timothy B. Heath, 1996. "Conflict and Loss Aversion in Multiattribute Choice: The Effects of Trade-Off Size and Reference Dependence on Decision Difficulty," Post-Print hal-00670460, HAL.
    19. 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.
    20. 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.
    21. Chu, P. C. & Spires, Eric E. & Sueyoshi, Toshiyuki, 1999. "Cross-Cultural Differences in Choice Behavior and Use of Decision Aids: A Comparison of Japan and the United States," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 77(2), pages 147-170, February.
    22. Moez Limayem & Gerardine DeSanctis, 2000. "Providing Decisional Guidance for Multicriteria Decision Making in Groups," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 11(4), pages 386-401, December.
    23. Chatterjee, Subimal & Heath, Timothy B., 1996. "Conflict and Loss Aversion in Multiattribute Choice: The Effects of Trade-Off Size and Reference Dependence on Decision Difficulty," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 67(2), pages 144-155, August.
    24. Bettman, James R. & Johnson, Eric J. & Payne, John W., 1990. "A componential analysis of cognitive effort in choice," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 45(1), pages 111-139, February.
    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. Pasquale Anselmi & Luigi Fabbris & Maria Cristiana Martini & Egidio Robusto, 2018. "Comparison of four common data collection techniques to elicit preferences," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 52(3), pages 1227-1239, May.
    2. Johannes Gettinger & Sabine T. Koeszegi, 2014. "Far from Eye, Far from Heart: Analysis of Graphical Decision Aids in Electronic Negotiation Support," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 23(4), pages 787-817, July.
    3. Kaisa Miettinen & Francisco Ruiz, 2016. "NAUTILUS framework: towards trade-off-free interaction in multiobjective optimization," Journal of Business Economics, Springer, vol. 86(1), pages 5-21, January.
    4. Ziho Kang & Thomas Morin, 2016. "Multi-Attribute Decision Making in a Bidding Game with Imperfect Information and Uncertainty," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 15(01), pages 63-81, January.
    5. Ana B. Ruiz & Francisco Ruiz & Kaisa Miettinen & Laura Delgado-Antequera & Vesa Ojalehto, 2019. "NAUTILUS Navigator: free search interactive multiobjective optimization without trading-off," Journal of Global Optimization, Springer, vol. 74(2), pages 213-231, June.
    6. Kaisa Miettinen & Dmitry Podkopaev & Francisco Ruiz & Mariano Luque, 2015. "A new preference handling technique for interactive multiobjective optimization without trading-off," Journal of Global Optimization, Springer, vol. 63(4), pages 633-652, December.
    7. Miettinen, Kaisa & Eskelinen, Petri & Ruiz, Francisco & Luque, Mariano, 2010. "NAUTILUS method: An interactive technique in multiobjective optimization based on the nadir point," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 206(2), pages 426-434, October.
    8. Fasolo, Barbara & Bana e Costa, Carlos A., 2014. "Tailoring value elicitation to decision makers' numeracy and fluency: Expressing value judgments in numbers or words," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 83-90.
    9. Ferretti, Valentina & Montibeller, Gilberto & von Winterfeldt, Detlof, 2023. "Testing the effectiveness of debiasing techniques to reduce overprecision in the elicitation of subjective continuous probability distributions," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 115333, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    10. Sahar Mirzaee & David Fannon & Matthias Ruth, 2019. "A comparison of preference elicitation methods for multi-criteria design decisions about resilient and sustainable buildings," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 39(4), pages 439-453, December.
    11. Young Eun Lee & Izak Benbasat, 2011. "Research Note ---The Influence of Trade-off Difficulty Caused by Preference Elicitation Methods on User Acceptance of Recommendation Agents Across Loss and Gain Conditions," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 22(4), pages 867-884, December.
    12. Ferretti, Valentina & Montibeller, Gilberto & von Winterfeldt, Detlof, 2023. "Testing the effectiveness of debiasing techniques to reduce overprecision in the elicitation of subjective continuous probability distributions," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 304(2), pages 661-675.

    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. Moez Limayem & Gerardine DeSanctis, 2000. "Providing Decisional Guidance for Multicriteria Decision Making in Groups," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 11(4), pages 386-401, December.
    2. Manel Baucells & Rakesh K. Sarin, 2003. "Group Decisions with Multiple Criteria," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 49(8), pages 1105-1118, August.
    3. Dellaert, B.G.C. & Stremersch, S., 2004. "Consumer Preferences for Mass Customization," ERIM Report Series Research in Management ERS-2004-087-MKT, Erasmus Research Institute of Management (ERIM), ERIM is the joint research institute of the Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University and the Erasmus School of Economics (ESE) at Erasmus University Rotterdam.
    4. Kartik Hosanagar, 2011. "Usercentric Operational Decision Making in Distributed Information Retrieval," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 22(4), pages 739-755, December.
    5. S. Iglesias-Parro & A. Ortega & E. De la Fuente & I. Martín, 2001. "Context Variables as Cognitive Effort Modulators in Decision Making Using an Alternative-Based Processing Strategy," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 35(3), pages 311-323, August.
    6. Sun, Minghe, 2005. "Some issues in measuring and reporting solution quality of interactive multiple objective programming procedures," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 162(2), pages 468-483, April.
    7. Sander, H. & Kleimeier, S., 2004. "Interest rate pass-through in an enlarged Europe: the role of banking market structure for monetary policy transmission in transition countries," Research Memorandum 044, Maastricht University, Maastricht Research School of Economics of Technology and Organization (METEOR).
    8. 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.
    9. Wang, Yu-Yin & Wang, Yi-Shun & Lin, Tung-Ching, 2018. "Developing and validating a technology upgrade model," International Journal of Information Management, Elsevier, vol. 38(1), pages 7-26.
    10. Chu, P. C. & Spires, Eric E., 2003. "Perceptions of accuracy and effort of decision strategies," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 91(2), pages 203-214, July.
    11. 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.
    12. Downing, C. E. & Ringuest, J. L., 1998. "An experimental evaluation of the efficacy of four multi-objective linear programming algorithms," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 104(3), pages 549-558, February.
    13. Alan L. Montgomery & Kartik Hosanagar & Ramayya Krishnan & Karen B. Clay, 2004. "Designing a Better Shopbot," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 50(2), pages 189-206, February.
    14. Aksoy, Yasemin & Butler, Timothy W. & Minor, Elliott D., 1996. "Comparative studies in interactive multiple objective mathematical programming," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 89(2), pages 408-422, March.
    15. Klimberg, Ronald & Cohen, Robert M., 1999. "Experimental evaluation of a graphical display system to visualizing multiple criteria solutions," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 119(1), pages 191-208, November.
    16. Deparis, Stéphane & Mousseau, Vincent & Öztürk, Meltem & Pallier, Christophe & Huron, Caroline, 2012. "When conflict induces the expression of incomplete preferences," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 221(3), pages 593-602.
    17. Gerald Häubl & Valerie Trifts, 2000. "Consumer Decision Making in Online Shopping Environments: The Effects of Interactive Decision Aids," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 19(1), pages 4-21, May.
    18. Jaszkiewicz, Andrzej & Slowinski, Roman, 1999. "The `Light Beam Search' approach - an overview of methodology and applications," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 113(2), pages 300-314, March.
    19. Dimitrios Tsekouras & Benedict G. C. Dellaert & Bas Donkers & Gerald Häubl, 2020. "Product set granularity and consumer response to recommendations," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 48(2), pages 186-202, March.
    20. 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.

    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:eee:ejores:v:169:y:2006:i:1:p:273-285. 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.