IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ejores/v304y2023i3p1133-1139.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Strategic manipulation in group decisions with pairwise comparisons: A game theoretical perspective

Author

Listed:
  • Sasaki, Yasuo

Abstract

We discuss the issue of strategic manipulation in group decision-making via pairwise comparisons. Pairwise comparisons play a pivotal role in the analytic hierarchy process (AHP). Although there is a large amount of literature on its application to group decisions, very little attention has been paid to the strategic issue: a group decision can be biased by strategically dishonest individuals. We aim to draw attention to the problem and provide a formal perspective to deal with it. We consider a scenario of group decision-making where the inputs are the individuals’ pairwise preferences and the outcome is in their interest. We formulate this situation as a strategic game where the individuals decide how to submit their pairwise preferences. Theoretical results show that truthful reporting can be a dominant strategy only in very limited situations, and moreover it is often weakly dominated.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ejores:v:304:y:2023:i:3:p:1133-1139
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ejor.2022.05.015
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0377221722003885
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ejor.2022.05.015?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. Truchon, Michel, 2004. "Aggregation of Rankings in Figure Skating," Cahiers de recherche 0402, Université Laval - Département d'économique.
    2. Dietrich, Franz & List, Christian, 2007. "Strategy-Proof Judgment Aggregation," Economics and Philosophy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 23(3), pages 269-300, November.
    3. Brunelli, Matteo, 2019. "A study on the anonymity of pairwise comparisons in group decision making," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 279(2), pages 502-510.
    4. Bogetoft, Peter, 1992. "A note on conflict resolution and truthtelling," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 60(1), pages 109-116, July.
    5. Hämäläinen, Raimo P. & Luoma, Jukka & Saarinen, Esa, 2013. "On the importance of behavioral operational research: The case of understanding and communicating about dynamic systems," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 228(3), pages 623-634.
    6. 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.
    7. Salo, Ahti A., 1995. "Interactive decision aiding for group decision support," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 84(1), pages 134-149, July.
    8. Csató, László & Petróczy, Dóra Gréta, 2021. "On the monotonicity of the eigenvector method," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 292(1), pages 230-237.
    9. 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.
    10. Martin J. Osborne & Ariel Rubinstein, 1994. "A Course in Game Theory," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262650401, April.
    11. Nikou, Shahrokh & Mezei, József, 2013. "Evaluation of mobile services and substantial adoption factors with Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP)," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(10), pages 915-929.
    12. Thomas Saaty & Luis Vargas, 2012. "The possibility of group choice: pairwise comparisons and merging functions," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 38(3), pages 481-496, March.
    13. Ananda, Jayanath & Herath, Gamini, 2008. "Multi-attribute preference modelling and regional land-use planning," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(2), pages 325-335, April.
    14. Satterthwaite, Mark Allen, 1975. "Strategy-proofness and Arrow's conditions: Existence and correspondence theorems for voting procedures and social welfare functions," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 10(2), pages 187-217, April.
    15. Bernasconi, Michele & Choirat, Christine & Seri, Raffaello, 2014. "Empirical properties of group preference aggregation methods employed in AHP: Theory and evidence," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 232(3), pages 584-592.
    16. Maskin, Eric & Sjostrom, Tomas, 2002. "Implementation theory," Handbook of Social Choice and Welfare, in: K. J. Arrow & A. K. Sen & K. Suzumura (ed.), Handbook of Social Choice and Welfare, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 5, pages 237-288, Elsevier.
    17. Yoram Wind & Thomas L. Saaty, 1980. "Marketing Applications of the Analytic Hierarchy Process," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(7), pages 641-658, July.
    18. 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.
    19. Gibbard, Allan, 1973. "Manipulation of Voting Schemes: A General Result," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 41(4), pages 587-601, July.
    20. 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.
    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. Mahajan, Aseem & Pongou, Roland & Tondji, Jean-Baptiste, 2023. "Supermajority politics: Equilibrium range, policy diversity, utilitarian welfare, and political compromise," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 307(2), pages 963-974.

    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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. Brunelli, Matteo, 2019. "A study on the anonymity of pairwise comparisons in group decision making," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 279(2), pages 502-510.
    4. Milan Ranđelović & Jelena Stanković & Kristijan Kuk & Gordana Savić & Dragan Ranđelović, 2018. "An Approach to Determining the Importance of Model Criteria in Certifying a City as Business-Friendly," Interfaces, INFORMS, vol. 48(2), pages 156-165, April.
    5. Bernasconi, Michele & Choirat, Christine & Seri, Raffaello, 2014. "Empirical properties of group preference aggregation methods employed in AHP: Theory and evidence," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 232(3), pages 584-592.
    6. Roberto Serrano, 2003. "The Theory of Implementation of Social Choice Rules," Working Papers 2003-19, Brown University, Department of Economics.
    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. Natalie M. Scala & Jayant Rajgopal & Luis G. Vargas & Kim LaScola Needy, 2016. "Group Decision Making with Dispersion in the Analytic Hierarchy Process," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 25(2), pages 355-372, March.
    9. 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.
    10. 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.
    11. 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.
    12. Zhu, Bin & Xu, Zeshui, 2014. "Analytic hierarchy process-hesitant group decision making," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 239(3), pages 794-801.
    13. 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.
    14. 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.
    15. Betul Yagmahan & Hilal Yılmaz, 2023. "An integrated ranking approach based on group multi-criteria decision making and sensitivity analysis to evaluate charging stations under sustainability," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 25(1), pages 96-121, January.
    16. Yao, Haixiang & Yi, Jianxin, 2007. "Social choice rules implemented in dominant strategies," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 97(3), pages 197-200, December.
    17. te Boveldt, Geert & Van Raemdonck, Koen & Macharis, Cathy, 2018. "A new railway tunnel under Brussels? Assessing political feasibility and desirability with competence-based multi criteria analysis," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 30-39.
    18. C H Han & B S Ahn, 2005. "Interactive group decision-making procedure using weak strength of preference," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 56(10), pages 1204-1212, October.
    19. Baumeister, Dorothea & Erdélyi, Gábor & Erdélyi, Olivia J. & Rothe, Jörg, 2015. "Complexity of manipulation and bribery in judgment aggregation for uniform premise-based quota rules," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 19-30.
    20. 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.

    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:304:y:2023:i:3:p:1133-1139. 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.