Are partwise comparisons reliable?

Research in Engineering Design

Volumn 15, Issue 1, 2004, Pages 62-71

  Saari, D G ^a   Sieberg, K K ^b,c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b TAMPERE UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY   (Finland)

^c BINGHAMTON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Consumer survey; Decision analysis; Paradoxes

Indexed keywords

CUSTOMER SATISFACTION; DECISION MAKING; MATHEMATICAL MODELS; PROBLEM SOLVING; SURVEYS;

CONSUMER SURVEY; MARKET SURVEYS; PARADOXES;

DECISION THEORY;

EID: 4644345704     PISSN: 09349839     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s00163-003-0046-0     Document Type: Article

References (10)

1. Arrow KJ (1963) Social choice and individual values, 2nd edn. Wiley, New York
2. Condorcet M (1785) Éssai sur l'application de l'analyse à la probabilité des décisionsrendues à la pluralité des voix. Paris
3. Haunsperger D, SaariDG (1991) The lack of consistency for statistical decision procedures. Am Statist 45:252-255
4. Nurmi H (1999) Voting paradoxes and how to deal with them. Springer, New York Berlin Heidelberg
5. Nurmi H (2002) Voting procedures under uncertainty. Springer, New York Berlin Heidelberg
6. SaariDG (1999) Explaining all three alternative voting outcomes. J Econ Theory 87:313-355.
7. SaariDG (2000) Mathematical structure of voting paradoxes I and II. Econ Theory 15:1-101
8. SaariDG (2001) Chaotic elections! A mathematician looks at voting. American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI
9. SaariDG, Sieberg K (2001) The sum of the parts can violate the whole. Am PolitSci Rev 95:415-433
10. Saaty T (1980) Analytic heirachy process. McGraw-Hill, New York