IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ejores/v322y2025i1p182-197.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Effects of many conflicting objectives on decision-makers’ cognitive burden and decision consistency

Author

Listed:
  • Kivikangas, J. Matias
  • Vilkkumaa, Eeva
  • Blank, Julian
  • Harjunen, Ville
  • Malo, Pekka
  • Deb, Kalyanmoy
  • Ravaja, Niklas J.
  • Wallenius, Jyrki

Abstract

Practical planning and decision-making problems are often better and more accurately formulated with multiple conflicting objectives rather than a single objective. This study investigates a situation relevant for Multiple Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) as well as Evolutionary Multi-objective Optimization (EMO), where the decision-maker needs to make a series of choices between nondominated options characterized by multiple objectives. The cognitive capacity of humans is limited, which leads to cognitive burden that influences human decision-makers’ decisions. We measure how the varying number of objectives influences cognitive burden in a laboratory study, and the impacts that this burden has on the decision-makers’ behavior and the consistency of their decisions. We use psychophysiological, behavioral, and self-report methods. Our results suggest that a higher number of objectives (i) increases cognitive burden significantly, (ii) leads to adopting strategies in which only a limited number of objectives is considered, and (iii) decreases decision consistency.

Suggested Citation

  • Kivikangas, J. Matias & Vilkkumaa, Eeva & Blank, Julian & Harjunen, Ville & Malo, Pekka & Deb, Kalyanmoy & Ravaja, Niklas J. & Wallenius, Jyrki, 2025. "Effects of many conflicting objectives on decision-makers’ cognitive burden and decision consistency," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 322(1), pages 182-197.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ejores:v:322:y:2025:i:1:p:182-197
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ejor.2024.10.039
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0377221724008427
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ejor.2024.10.039?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. Manel Baucells & Juan A. Carrasco & Robin M. Hogarth, 2008. "Cumulative Dominance and Heuristic Performance in Binary Multiattribute Choice," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 56(5), pages 1289-1304, October.
    2. Lisa Perkhofer & Othmar Lehner, 2019. "Using Gaze Behavior to Measure Cognitive Load," Lecture Notes in Information Systems and Organization, in: Fred D. Davis & René Riedl & Jan vom Brocke & Pierre-Majorique Léger & Adriane B. Randolph (ed.), Information Systems and Neuroscience, pages 73-83, Springer.
    3. Pande, Shashwat M. & Papamichail, K. Nadia & Kawalek, Peter, 2021. "Compatibility effects in the prescriptive application of psychological heuristics: Inhibition, Integration and Selection," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 295(3), pages 982-995.
    4. Charles Bellemare & Luc Bissonnette & Sabine Kröger, 2014. "Statistical Power of Within and Between-Subjects Designs in Economic Experiments," Cahiers de recherche 1403, Centre de recherche sur les risques, les enjeux économiques, et les politiques publiques.
    5. Pekka Korhonen & Jyrki Wallenius & Stanley Zionts, 1984. "Solving the Discrete Multiple Criteria Problem using Convex Cones," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 30(11), pages 1336-1345, November.
    6. Herbert A. Simon, 1955. "A Behavioral Model of Rational Choice," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 69(1), pages 99-118.
    7. Mats Danielson & Love Ekenberg, 2017. "A Robustness Study of State-of-the-Art Surrogate Weights for MCDM," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 26(4), pages 677-691, July.
    8. Jyrki Wallenius & James S. Dyer & Peter C. Fishburn & Ralph E. Steuer & Stanley Zionts & Kalyanmoy Deb, 2008. "Multiple Criteria Decision Making, Multiattribute Utility Theory: Recent Accomplishments and What Lies Ahead," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 54(7), pages 1336-1349, July.
    9. 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.
    10. Selcen (Pamuk) Phelps & Murat Köksalan, 2003. "An Interactive Evolutionary Metaheuristic for Multiobjective Combinatorial Optimization," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 49(12), pages 1726-1738, December.
    11. Korhonen, Pekka J. & Wallenius, Jyrki & Genc, Tolga & Xu, Peng, 2021. "On rational behavior in multi-attribute riskless choice," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 288(1), pages 331-342.
    12. Katsikopoulos, Konstantinos V. & Durbach, Ian N. & Stewart, Theodor J., 2018. "When should we use simple decision models? A synthesis of various research strands," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 17-25.
    13. James S. Dyer & Rakesh K. Sarin, 1979. "Measurable Multiattribute Value Functions," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 27(4), pages 810-822, August.
    14. Rutkowski, A.F. & Saunders, C., 2010. "Growing pains with information overload," Other publications TiSEM a2de8630-4974-4553-beed-7, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    15. Malhotra, Naresh K, 1982. "Information Load and Consumer Decision Making," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 8(4), pages 419-430, March.
    16. Pekka J. Korhonen & Jyrki Wallenius, 2020. "Making Better Decisions," International Series in Operations Research and Management Science, Springer, number 978-3-030-49459-9, June.
    17. Murat Köksalan & Jyrki Wallenius & Stanley Zionts, 2011. "Multiple Criteria Decision Making:From Early History to the 21st Century," World Scientific Books, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., number 8042, April.
    18. Thomas Kourouxous & Thomas Bauer, 2019. "Violations of dominance in decision-making," Business Research, Springer;German Academic Association for Business Research, vol. 12(1), pages 209-239, April.
    19. Pennington, Robin R. & Kelton, Andrea Seaton, 2016. "How much is enough? An investigation of nonprofessional investors information search and stopping rule use," International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, Elsevier, vol. 21(C), pages 47-62.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Pande, Shashwat M. & Papamichail, K. Nadia & Kawalek, Peter, 2021. "Compatibility effects in the prescriptive application of psychological heuristics: Inhibition, Integration and Selection," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 295(3), pages 982-995.
    2. Miłosz Kadziński & Michał K. Tomczyk, 2017. "Interactive Evolutionary Multiple Objective Optimization for Group Decision Incorporating Value-based Preference Disaggregation Methods," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 26(4), pages 693-728, July.
    3. Harju, Mikko & Liesiö, Juuso & Virtanen, Kai, 2019. "Spatial multi-attribute decision analysis: Axiomatic foundations and incomplete preference information," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 275(1), pages 167-181.
    4. Fowler, John W. & Gel, Esma S. & Köksalan, Murat M. & Korhonen, Pekka & Marquis, Jon L. & Wallenius, Jyrki, 2010. "Interactive evolutionary multi-objective optimization for quasi-concave preference functions," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 206(2), pages 417-425, October.
    5. Katsikopoulos, Konstantinos V. & Egozcue, Martin & Garcia, Luis Fuentes, 2022. "A simple model for mixing intuition and analysis," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 303(2), pages 779-789.
    6. Nagler Matthew G., 2007. "Understanding the Internet's Relevance to Media Ownership Policy: A Model of Too Many Choices," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 7(1), pages 1-28, June.
    7. Samek, Anya & Hur, Inkyoung & Kim, Sung-Hee & Yi, Ji Soo, 2016. "An experimental study of the decision process with interactive technology," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 20-32.
    8. Robin Maximilian Stetzka & Stefan Winter, 2023. "How rational is gambling?," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 37(4), pages 1432-1488, September.
    9. Nikolaos Argyris & Alec Morton & José Rui Figueira, 2014. "CUT: A Multicriteria Approach for Concavifiable Preferences," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 62(3), pages 633-642, June.
    10. Tobias Thomas & Dominik Straub & Fabian Tatai & Megan Shene & Tümer Tosik & Kristian Kersting & Constantin A. Rothkopf, 2024. "Modelling dataset bias in machine-learned theories of economic decision-making," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 8(4), pages 679-691, April.
    11. Jan Trzaskowski, 2011. "Behavioural Economics, Neuroscience, and the Unfair Commercial Practises Directive," Journal of Consumer Policy, Springer, vol. 34(3), pages 377-392, September.
    12. Peter Reichert & Klemens Niederberger & Peter Rey & Urs Helg & Susanne Haertel-Borer, 2019. "The need for unconventional value aggregation techniques: experiences from eliciting stakeholder preferences in environmental management," EURO Journal on Decision Processes, Springer;EURO - The Association of European Operational Research Societies, vol. 7(3), pages 197-219, November.
    13. Wynn C. Stirling & Teppo Felin, 2016. "Satisficing, preferences, and social interaction: a new perspective," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 81(2), pages 279-308, August.
    14. Peter Gordon Roetzel, 2019. "Information overload in the information age: a review of the literature from business administration, business psychology, and related disciplines with a bibliometric approach and framework developmen," Business Research, Springer;German Academic Association for Business Research, vol. 12(2), pages 479-522, December.
    15. Behnam Malakooti, 2015. "Double Helix Value Functions, Ordinal/Cardinal Approach, Additive Utility Functions, Multiple Criteria, Decision Paradigm, Process, and Types (Z Theory I)," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 14(06), pages 1353-1400, November.
    16. Mark Heitmann & Andreas Herrmann & Christian Kaiser, 2007. "The effect of product variety on purchase probability," Review of Managerial Science, Springer, vol. 1(2), pages 111-131, August.
    17. Kjell Hausken, 2019. "Principal–Agent Theory, Game Theory, and the Precautionary Principle," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 16(2), pages 105-127, June.
    18. Anna Trunk & Hendrik Birkel & Evi Hartmann, 2020. "On the current state of combining human and artificial intelligence for strategic organizational decision making," Business Research, Springer;German Academic Association for Business Research, vol. 13(3), pages 875-919, November.
    19. Hocine, Amine & Kouaissah, Noureddine, 2020. "XOR analytic hierarchy process and its application in the renewable energy sector," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 97(C).
    20. Jyrki Wallenius & James S. Dyer & Peter C. Fishburn & Ralph E. Steuer & Stanley Zionts & Kalyanmoy Deb, 2008. "Multiple Criteria Decision Making, Multiattribute Utility Theory: Recent Accomplishments and What Lies Ahead," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 54(7), pages 1336-1349, 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:322:y:2025:i:1:p:182-197. 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.