A comparison of verbal and numerical judgments in the analytic hierarchy process

Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes

Volumn 70, Issue 3, 1997, Pages 237-247

  Huizingh, Eelko K R E ^a   Vrolijk, Hans C J ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF GRONINGEN   (Netherlands)

^b NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0031165253     PISSN: 07495978     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1006/obhd.1997.2708     Document Type: Article

References (53)

1. Akaah I. P., Korgaonkar P. K. An empirical comparison of the predictive validity of self-explicated, Huber-hybrid, traditional conjoint, and hybrid conjoint models. Journal of Marketing Research. XX:1983;187-197.
2. Apostolou B., Hassell J. M. An overview of the Analytic Hierarchy Process and its use in the accounting research. Journal of Accounting Literature. 12:1993;1-28.
3. Bass B. M., Cascio W. F., O'Conner E. J. Magnitude estimation of expressions of frequency and amount. Journal of Applied Psychology. 59:1974;313-320.
4. Beyth-Marom R. How probable is probable?, Numerical translation of verbal probability expressions. Journal of Forecasting. 1:1982;257-269.
5. Brun W., Teigen K. H. Verbal Probabilities: Ambiguous, Context-Dependent, or Both? Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. 41:1988;390-404.
6. Bryant G. D., Norman G. R. Expressions of probability: Words and Numbers. The New England Journal of Medicine. 302:1980;411.
7. Budescu D. V., Wallsten T. S. Consistency in Interpretation of Probabilistic Phrases. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. 36:1985;391-405.
8. Budescu D. V., Wallsten T. S. Dyadic Decisions with Numerical and Verbal Probabilities. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. 46:1990;240-263.
9. Budescu D. V., Wallsten T. S. Processing linguistic probabilities: General principles and empirical evidence. Decision making from a cognitive perspective. 1995;Academic Press, San Diego. p. 275-318.
10. Budescu D. V., Weinberg S., Wallsten T. S. Decisions based on numerically and verbally expressed uncertainties. Journal of Experiment Psychology: Human Perception and Performance. 14:1988;281-294.
11. Buede D. M. Software review: Three packages for AHP: Criterium, expert choice and HIPRE III+. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis. 1:1992;119-112.
12. Clarke V. A., Ruffin C. L., Hill D. J., Beaman A. L. Ratings of orally presented verbal expressions of probability by a heterogeneous sample. Journal of Applied Social Psychology. 22:1992;638-656.
13. Dyer R. F., Forman E. H. An Analytic Approach to Marketing Decisions. 1991;Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs.
14. Elrod T., Louviere J. J., Krishnakumar S. D. An emperical comparison of ratings-based and choice-based conjoint models. Journal of Marketing Research. XXIX:1992;368-377.
15. Erev I., Cohen B. L. Verbal versus numerical probabilities: Efficiency, biases and the preference paradox. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. 45:1990;1-18.
16. Finnie G. R., Wittig G. E., Petkov D. I. Prioritizing software development productivity factors using the analytic hierarchy process. Journal of Systems Software. 21:1993;129-139.
17. Fishburn P. C. Nonlinear preference and utility theory. 1988;John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.
18. Green P. E., Carmone F. J., Wind Y. Subjective evaluation and conjoint measurement. Behavioral Science. 17:1972;288-299.
19. Hakel M. How often is often? American Psychologist. 23:1968;533-534.
20. Hamm R. M. Selection of verbal probabilities: A solution for some problems of verbal probability expression. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. 48:1991;193-223.
21. Hauser J. R., Koppelman F. S. Alternative perceptual mapping techniques: Relative accuracy and usefulness. Journal of Marketing Research. XVI:1979;495-506.
22. Huizingh K. R. E., Vrolijk H. C. J. Extending the Applicability of the Analytic Hierarchy Process. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences. 31:1997;29-39.
23. Hwang C. L., Yoon K. Multiple attribute decision making: Methods and applications, a state-of-the-art survey. 1981;Springer-Verlag, New York.
24. E. M. Johnson, 1973, Numerical encoding of qualitative expressions of uncertainty, U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences, Alexandria, VA.
25. Kong A., Barnett G. O., Mosteller F., Youtz C. How medical professionals evaluate expressions of probability. The New England Journal of Medicine. 315:1986;740-744.
26. Lichtenstein S., Newman J. R. Empirical scaling of common verbal phrases associated with numerical probabilities. Psychonomic Science. 9:1967;563-564.
27. D. Ma, X. Zheng, 1991, 9/9-9/1 Scale method of AHP, Proceedings of the 2nd International Symposium on the AHP, I, 197, 202, Pittsburgh, PA.
28. Mapes R. E. A. Verbal and numerical estimates of probability in therapeutic contexts. Social Science Medicine. 13:1979;277-282.
29. Miller G. A. The magical number seven plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review. 63:1956;81-97.
30. Min H. Selection of software: The analytic hierarchy process. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management. 22:1992;42-52.
31. Mitta D. A. An application of the analytic hierarchy process: A rank-ordering of computer interfaces. Human Factors. 35:1993;141-157.
32. Mohanty R. P., Venkataraman S. Use of the analytic hierarchy process for selecting automated manufacturing systems. International Journal of Operations and Production Management. 13:1993;45-57.
33. Nakao M. A., Axelrod S. Numbers are better than words: Verbal specifications of frequency have no place in medicine. The American Journal of Medicine. 74:1983;1061-1063.
34. Pepper S., Prytulak L. S. Sometimes frequently means seldom: Context effects in the interpretation of quantitative expressions. Journal of Research in Personality. 8:1974;95-101.
35. Pöyhönen M. A., Hämäläinen R. P., Salo A. A. An experiment on the numerical modelling of verbal ratio statements. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis. 5:1996.
36. Saaty T. A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures. Journal of Mathematical Psychology. 15:1977;234-281.
37. Saaty T. The analytic hierarchy process. 1980;Mc Graw-Hill, New York.
38. Saaty T. L. Absolute and relative measurement with the AHP, the most livable cities in the United States. Socio-Economic Planning Science. 20:1986;327-331.
39. Saaty T. The analytic network process. 1996;RWS Publications, Pittsburgh.
40. A. Salo, R. P. Hämäläinen, 1993, On the measurement of preferences in the analytic hierarchy process, Helsinki University of Technology, System Analysis Laboratory Research Reports, Espoo.
41. Schoemaker P. J. H., Waid C. C. An experimental comparison of different approaches to determining weights in additive utility models. Management Science. 28:1982;182-196.
42. Simpson R. H. The specific meanings of certain terms indicating differing degrees of frequency. Quarterly Journal of Speech. 30:1944;328-330.
43. Simpson R. H. Stability in meanings for quantitative terms: A comparison over 20 years. Quarterly Journal of Speech. 49:1963;146-151.
44. SPSS categories. 1990;SPSS Inc. Chicago.
45. Stone D. R., Johnson R. J. A study of words indicating frequency. Journal of Educational Psychology. 50:1959;224-227.
46. Timmermans D. The roles of experience and domain of experience in using numerical and verbal probability terms in medical decisions. Medical Decision Making. 14:1994;146-156.
47. Timmermans H. Hybrid and non-hybrid evaluation models for predicting outdoor recreation behavior: A test of predictive ability. Leisure Science. 9:1985;67-76.
48. Tscheulin D. Ein Empirischer Vergleich der Eignung von Conjoint-Analyse und Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) zur Neuproduktplannung. Zeitschrift fur Betriebswirtshaft. 61:1991;1267-1279.
49. Van der Lans I. A., Heiser W. J. Constrained part-worth estimation in conjoint analysis using the self-explicated utility model. International Journal of Research in Marketing. 9:1992;325-344.
50. Wind Y., Saaty T. L. Marketing applications of the analytic hierarchy process. Management Science. 26:1980;641-658.
51. Yau C., Davis T. Using analytic hierarchy process to prioritize auditing tasks for large-scale software systems. Journal of Systems Management. 44:1993;26-32.
52. Zimmer A. C. Verbal vs. numerical processing of subjective probabilities. Scholz R. W. Decision making under uncertainty. 1983;North-Holland, Amsterdam.
53. R. Zwick, 1987, Combining stochastic uncertainty and linguistic inexactness: Theory and experimental evaluation, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.