IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/cejnor/v22y2014i4p647-662.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The effect of information on the quality of decisions

Author

Listed:
  • Christoph Graf
  • Magdalena Six

Abstract

We study the effect of additional information on the quality of decisions. We define the extreme case of complete information about probabilities as our reference scenario. There, decision makers (DMs) can use expected utility theory to evaluate the best alternative. Starting from the worst case—where DMs have no information at all about probabilities—we find a method of constantly increasing the information by systematically limiting the ranges of the probabilities. In our simulation-based study, we measure the effects of the constant increase in information by using different forms of relative volumes. We define these as the relative volumes of the gradually narrowing areas which lead to the same (or a similar) decision as with the probability in the reference scenario. Thus, the relative volumes account for the quality of information. Combining the quantity and quality of information, we find decreasing returns to scale on information, or in other words, the costs of gathering additional information increase with the level of information. Moreover, we show that more available alternatives influence the decision process negatively. Finally, we analyze the quality of decisions in processes where more states of nature are considered. We find that this degree of complexity in the decision process also has a negative influence on the quality of decisions. Copyright Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Suggested Citation

  • Christoph Graf & Magdalena Six, 2014. "The effect of information on the quality of decisions," 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. 22(4), pages 647-662, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:cejnor:v:22:y:2014:i:4:p:647-662
    DOI: 10.1007/s10100-013-0291-x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s10100-013-0291-x
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10100-013-0291-x?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. Vetschera, Rudolf & Chen, Ye & Hipel, Keith W. & Marc Kilgour, D., 2010. "Robustness and information levels in case-based multiple criteria sorting," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 202(3), pages 841-852, May.
    2. Rubinstein, R. Y., 1982. "Generating random vectors uniformly distributed inside and on the surface of different regions," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 10(2), pages 205-209, June.
    3. Bana e Costa, Carlos A., 1986. "A multicriteria decision aid methodology to deal with conflicting situations on the weights," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 26(1), pages 22-34, July.
    4. Eiselt, H. A. & Laporte, Gilbert, 1992. "The use of domains in multicriteria decision making," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 61(3), pages 292-298, September.
    5. Tervonen, Tommi & Lahdelma, Risto, 2007. "Implementing stochastic multicriteria acceptability analysis," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 178(2), pages 500-513, April.
    6. Lahdelma, Risto & Hokkanen, Joonas & Salminen, Pekka, 1998. "SMAA - Stochastic multiobjective acceptability analysis," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 106(1), pages 137-143, April.
    7. Dias, Luis C. & Climaco, Joao N., 2005. "Dealing with imprecise information in group multicriteria decisions: a methodology and a GDSS architecture," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 160(2), pages 291-307, January.
    8. Vetschera, Rudolf, 2009. "Learning about preferences in electronic negotiations - A volume-based measurement method," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 194(2), pages 452-463, April.
    9. Lahdelma, Risto & Miettinen, Kaisa & Salminen, Pekka, 2003. "Ordinal criteria in stochastic multicriteria acceptability analysis (SMAA)," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 147(1), pages 117-127, May.
    10. Risto Lahdelma & Pekka Salminen, 2001. "SMAA-2: Stochastic Multicriteria Acceptability Analysis for Group Decision Making," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 49(3), pages 444-454, June.
    11. L C Dias & J N Clímaco, 2000. "Additive aggregation with variable interdependent parameters: the VIP analysis software," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 51(9), pages 1070-1082, 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. Vetschera, Rudolf, 2017. "Deriving rankings from incomplete preference information: A comparison of different approaches," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 258(1), pages 244-253.
    2. Lea Sonderegger-Wakolbinger & Christian Stummer, 2015. "An agent-based simulation of customer multi-channel choice behavior," 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. 23(2), pages 459-477, June.

    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. Vetschera, Rudolf, 2017. "Deriving rankings from incomplete preference information: A comparison of different approaches," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 258(1), pages 244-253.
    2. García Cáceres, Rafael Guillermo & Aráoz Durand, Julián Arturo & Gómez, Fernando Palacios, 2009. "Integral analysis method - IAM," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 192(3), pages 891-903, February.
    3. Paula Sarabando & Luís C. Dias & Rudolf Vetschera, 2013. "Mediation with Incomplete Information: Approaches to Suggest Potential Agreements," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 22(3), pages 561-597, May.
    4. Menou, Abdellah & Benallou, Abdelhanine & Lahdelma, Risto & Salminen, Pekka, 2010. "Decision support for centralizing cargo at a Moroccan airport hub using stochastic multicriteria acceptability analysis," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 204(3), pages 621-629, August.
    5. R. Pelissari & M. C. Oliveira & S. Ben Amor & A. Kandakoglu & A. L. Helleno, 2020. "SMAA methods and their applications: a literature review and future research directions," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 293(2), pages 433-493, October.
    6. García-Cáceres, Rafael Guillermo, 2020. "Stochastic Multicriteria Acceptability Analysis – Matching (SMAA-M)," Operations Research Perspectives, Elsevier, vol. 7(C).
    7. Corrente, Salvatore & Figueira, José Rui & Greco, Salvatore, 2014. "The SMAA-PROMETHEE method," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 239(2), pages 514-522.
    8. Dias, Luis C. & Climaco, Joao N., 2005. "Dealing with imprecise information in group multicriteria decisions: a methodology and a GDSS architecture," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 160(2), pages 291-307, January.
    9. Lahdelma, Risto & Miettinen, Kaisa & Salminen, Pekka, 2005. "Reference point approach for multiple decision makers," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 164(3), pages 785-791, August.
    10. Zhu, Bin & Xu, Zeshui, 2014. "Stochastic preference analysis in numerical preference relations," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 237(2), pages 628-633.
    11. Luis C. Dias & Carolina Passeira & João Malça & Fausto Freire, 2022. "Integrating life-cycle assessment and multi-criteria decision analysis to compare alternative biodiesel chains," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 312(2), pages 1359-1374, May.
    12. Haichao Wang & Wenling Jiao & Risto Lahdelma & Chuanzhi Zhu & Pinghua Zou, 2014. "Stochastic Multicriteria Acceptability Analysis for Evaluation of Combined Heat and Power Units," Energies, MDPI, vol. 8(1), pages 1-20, December.
    13. Lahdelma, Risto & Makkonen, Simo & Salminen, Pekka, 2009. "Two ways to handle dependent uncertainties in multi-criteria decision problems," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 37(1), pages 79-92, February.
    14. Abdellah Menou & Risto Lahdelma & Pekka Salminen, 2022. "Multicriteria Decision Aiding for Planning Renewable Power Production at Moroccan Airports," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(14), pages 1-20, July.
    15. Lahdelma, Risto & Salminen, Pekka, 2009. "Prospect theory and stochastic multicriteria acceptability analysis (SMAA)," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 37(5), pages 961-971, October.
    16. Silvia Angilella & Maria Rosaria Pappalardo, 2022. "Performance assessment of energy companies employing Hierarchy Stochastic Multi-Attribute Acceptability Analysis," Operational Research, Springer, vol. 22(1), pages 299-370, March.
    17. De Matteis, Domenico & Ishizaka, Alessio & Resce, Giuliano, 2019. "The ‘postcode lottery’ of the Italian public health bill analysed with the hierarchy Stochastic Multiobjective Acceptability Analysis," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 68(C).
    18. Wang, Guangchao & Jia, Ning & Ma, Shoufeng & Qi, Hang, 2014. "A rank-dependent bi-criterion equilibrium model for stochastic transportation environment," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 235(3), pages 511-529.
    19. Kangas, Annika S. & Kangas, Jyrki & Lahdelma, Risto & Salminen, Pekka, 2006. "Using SMAA-2 method with dependent uncertainties for strategic forest planning," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 9(2), pages 113-125, November.
    20. Raffaele Lagravinese & Paolo Liberati & Giuliano Resce, 2020. "Measuring Health Inequality in US: A Composite Index Approach," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 147(3), pages 921-946, February.

    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:cejnor:v:22:y:2014:i:4:p:647-662. 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.