IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this article

El pesar en el proceso analítico jerárquico1

Listed author(s):

    (Departamento Métodos Estadísticos. Universidad de Zaragoza)


    (Departamento Métodos Estadísticos. Universidad de Zaragoza)

Registered author(s):

    El trabajo analiza el significado del pesar asociado a las prioridades obtenidas en el Proceso Analítico Jerárquico (AHP), y, tal y como solicitan Loomes y Sudgen (1982) para la Toma de Decisiones (TD) en general, ofrece una expresión de las prioridades de AHP en función del pesar. Se ha encontrado la relación entre el pesar, evaluado tanto en términos absolutos como en términos relativos, y las prioridades obtenidas en AHP para dos procedimientos de normalización (modo distributivo e ideal) y dos de síntesis (aditiva y multiplicativa). Se ha probado que esta relación es independiente del método de normalización, y la forma que adopta depende del método de síntesis y de la forma en que se evalúa el pesar. Si la evaluación del pesar se efectúa en términos absolutos y se emplea la síntesis aditiva se obtienen una relación aditiva; y si el pesar se evalúa en términos relativos y se utiliza la síntesis multiplicativa la relación es multiplicativa. En ambos casos la aplicación de AHP y la minimización del pesar proporcionan los mismos resultados en selección multicriterio de alternativas. The paper analyses the meaning of the regret associated with the priorities obtained with the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), and, as it is required by Loomes and Sudgen (1982) for Decision Making, offers an expression of the AHP priorities in terms of the regret. We have found the relationship between the regret, evaluated both in absolute and in relative terms, and the AHP priorities obtained with two normalization methods (distributive and ideal) and two synthesis procedures (additive and multiplicative). We have proved that this relationship is independent of the normalization method employed, and that the form it adopts depends on the synthesis method and the way the regret is evaluated. If the regret is evaluated in absolute terms and the additive synthesis method is employed, the relationship has an additive form. If the regret is evaluated in relative terms and the multiplicative synthesis method is employed, the relationship is multiplicative. In both cases the application of AHP and the minimizat on of the regret provides the same results in multicriteria selection of alternatives.

    If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

    Article provided by Estudios de Economía Aplicada in its journal Estudios de Economía Aplicada.

    Volume (Year): 14 (2000)
    Issue (Month): (Abril)
    Pages: 95-115

    in new window

    Handle: RePEc:lrk:eeaart:14_1_5
    Contact details of provider: Postal:
    Beatriz Rodríguez Prado. Facultad de CC.EE. y EE. Avda. Valle del Esgueva. Valladolid 47011 SPAIN

    Phone: (34) 983 423320
    Fax: (34) 983 184568
    Web page:

    More information through EDIRC

    Order Information: Web: Email:

    References listed on IDEAS
    Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:

    in new window

    1. Machina, Mark J, 1982. ""Expected Utility" Analysis without the Independence Axiom," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 50(2), pages 277-323, March.
    2. Schoner, Bertram & Wedley, William C. & Choo, Eng Ung, 1993. "A unified approach to AHP with linking pins," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 64(3), pages 384-392, February.
    3. John Quiggin, 1990. "Stochastic Dominance in Regret Theory," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 57(3), pages 503-511.
    4. Kahneman, Daniel & Tversky, Amos, 1979. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 47(2), pages 263-291, March.
    5. Loomes, Graham & Sugden, Robert, 1983. "Regret theory and measurable utility," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 12(1), pages 19-21.
    6. Drazen Prelec, 1998. "The Probability Weighting Function," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 66(3), pages 497-528, May.
    7. Tversky, Amos & Kahneman, Daniel, 1992. "Advances in Prospect Theory: Cumulative Representation of Uncertainty," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 5(4), pages 297-323, October.
    8. Loomes, Graham & Sugden, Robert, 1982. "Regret Theory: An Alternative Theory of Rational Choice under Uncertainty," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 92(368), pages 805-824, December.
    9. Loomes, Graham & Sugden, Robert, 1987. "Testing for Regret and Disappointment in Choice under Uncertainty," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 97(388a), pages 118-129, Supplemen.
    10. Fishburn, Peter C., 1983. "Transitive measurable utility," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 31(2), pages 293-317, December.
    11. María Escobar & José Moreno-Jiménez, 1997. "The Hierarchical compromise programming," TOP: An Official Journal of the Spanish Society of Statistics and Operations Research, Springer;Sociedad de Estadística e Investigación Operativa, vol. 5(2), pages 253-281, December.
    12. Graham Loomes & Robert Sugden, 1986. "Disappointment and Dynamic Consistency in Choice under Uncertainty," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 53(2), pages 271-282.
    13. William G. Stillwell & Detlof von Winterfeldt & Richard S. John, 1987. "Comparing Hierarchical and Nonhierarchical Weighting Methods for Eliciting Multiattribute Value Models," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 33(4), pages 442-450, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:lrk:eeaart:14_1_5. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Beatriz Rodríguez Prado)

    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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.