Random error reduction in analytic hierarchies: A comparison of holistic and decompositional decision strategies

Journal of Behavioral Decision Making

Volumn 14, Issue 3, 2001, Pages 223-242

  Morera, Osvaldo F ^a   Budescu, David V ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT EL PASO   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA CHAMPAIGN   (United States)

Author keywords

Analytic hierarchy process; Holistic decompositional decisions; Random error reduction

Indexed keywords

EID: 23044525267     PISSN: 08943257     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/bdm.374     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Belton VA. 1986. comparison of the Analytic Hierarchy Process and a simple multi-attribute value function, European Journal of Operations Research, 26: 7-21.
2. Belton V, Gear T. 1983. On a short-coming of Saatys method of analytical hierarchies, Omega, 11: 228-230.
3. Budescu DV. 1984. Scaling binary comparison matrices: a comment on Narasimhans proposal and other methods, Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 14: 187-192.
4. Budescu DV, Crouch B, Morera OF. 1996. A multi-criteria comparison of response scales and scaling methods in the AHP, In Conference Proceedings from the Fourth International Symposium on the Analytical Hierarchy Process, Wedley W (ed.). July, 280-291.
5. Budescu DV, Zwick R, Rapoport A. 1986. A comparison of the eigenvalue method and the geometric mean procedure for ratio scaling, Applied Psychological Measurement, 10: 69-78.
6. Cohen J. 1988. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. Erlbaum: Hillsdale, NJ.
7. Cook WD, Kress M. 1992. Ordinal Information and Preference Structures: Decision Models and Applications. Prentice Hall: Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
8. Cooke ADJ, Mellers BA. 1995. Attribute range and response range: Limits of compatibility in multiattribute judgment, Organizational Behavioral and Human Decision Processes, 63: 187-194.
9. Cornelius ET, Lyness KS. 1980. A comparison of holistic and decomposed judgment strategies in job analyses by job incumbents, Journal of Applied Psychology, 65: 155-163.
10. de Neufville R. 1990. Applied Systems Analysis: Engineering, Planning and Technology. McGraw-Hill: New York.
11. Dodd FJ, Donegan HA, McMaster TBM. 1995. Scale horizons in analytic hierarchies, Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis, 4: 177-188.
12. Dyer JS. 1990a. Remarks on the Analytical Hierarchy Process. Management Science, 36: 249-258.
13. Dyer JS. 1990b. A clarification of Remarks on the Analytical Hierarchy Process, Management Science, 36: 274-275.
14. Edwards W. 1977. How to use multiattribute utility measurement for social decision making, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics 7: 326-340.
15. Edwards W, Barron F. 1994. SMARTS and SMARTER: Improved simple methods for multiattribute utility measurement, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 60: 306-325.
16. Eliahsburg JR, Hauser JR. 1985. A measurement error approach for modeling consumer risk preference, Management Science, 31: 1-25.
17. Fischer GW. 1977. Convergent validation of decomposed multi-attribute utility assessment procedures for risky and riskless decisions, Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 18: 295-315.
18. Fischer GW. 1995. Range sensitivity of attribute weights in multiattribute value models, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 62: 252-266.
19. Golany B, Kress M. 1993. A multicriteria evaluation of methods for obtaining weights from ratio-scale matrices, European Journal of Operations Research, 69: 201-220.
20. Harker P. 1977. Derivatives of the Perron root of a positive reciprocal matrix with application to the Analytical Hierarchy Process, Applied Mathematical Computations, 22: 217-232.
21. Harker PT, Vargas LG. 1990. Reply to Remarks on the Analytical Hierarchy Process by Dyer JS, Management Science, 36: 269-275.
22. Howard RA. 1992. Heathens, heretics, and cults: the religious spectrum of decision aiding, Interfaces, 22: 15-27.
23. Jensen RE. 1983. Aggregation (composition) schema for eigenvector scaling of criteria priorities in hierarchical structures, Multivariate Behavioral Research, 18: 63-84.
24. Johnson CR, Beine WB, Wang TJ. 1979. Right-left asymmetry in an eigenvector ranking procedure, Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 19: 61-64.
25. Keeney RL, Raiffa H. 1976. Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and value tradeoffs. Wiley: New York.
26. Kleinmuntz DN. 1990. Decomposition and the control of error in decision analytic models, In Insights in Decision Making: A Tribute to Hillel J. Einhorn, Hogarth R (ed.) University of Chicago Press: Chicago: IL; 107-126.
27. Kmett CM, Arkes HR, Jones SK. 1999. The influence of decision aids on high school students satisfaction with their college choice decision, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25: 1293-1301.
28. Laskey KB, Fischer GW. 1987. Estimating utility functions in the presence of response error, Management Science, 33: 965-980.
29. Lootsma FA. 1993. Scale sensitivity in the multiplicative AHP and SMART, Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis, 2, 87-110.
30. Lyness KS, Cornelius ET. 1982. A comparison of holistic and decomposed judgment strategies in a performance rating simulation, Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 29: 21-38.
31. Morera OF. 1997. An Investigation of Decomposed and Holistic Judgments in Multiattribute Decision Making: Generalizing the Divide and Conquer Principle. PhD dissertation, Department of Psychology, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
32. Morera OF, Budescu DV. 1998. A psychometric analysis of the Divide and Conquer principle in multi-criteria decision making, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 75: 187-206.
33. Ravinder HV. 1992. Random error in holistic evaluations and additive decomposition of multiattribute utility - an empirical comparison, Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 5: 155-167.
34. Ravinder HV, Kleinmuntz DN. 1991. Random error in additive decompositions of multiattribute utility, Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 4: 83-97.
35. Ravinder HV, Kleinmuntz DN, Dyer JS. 1988. The reliability of subjective probabilities obtained through decomposition, Management Science, 34: 186-199.