Show simple item record

hal.structure.identifier
dc.contributor.authorDeparis, Stéphane*
hal.structure.identifierLaboratoire d'analyse et modélisation de systèmes pour l'aide à la décision [LAMSADE]
dc.contributor.authorOzturk, Meltem*
hal.structure.identifier
dc.contributor.authorHuron, Caroline*
hal.structure.identifier
dc.contributor.authorMousseau, Vincent
HAL ID: 4625
*
dc.date.accessioned2016-06-14T11:37:21Z
dc.date.available2016-06-14T11:37:21Z
dc.date.issued2015
dc.identifier.issn0377-2217
dc.identifier.urihttps://basepub.dauphine.fr/handle/123456789/15558
dc.language.isoenen
dc.subjectMulticriteria decision
dc.subjectBehavioural decision analysis
dc.subjectPreference elicitation
dc.subjectMulticriteria conflict
dc.subjectMatching
dc.subject.ddc003en
dc.titleThe effect of bi-criteria conflict on matching-elicited preferences
dc.typeArticle accepté pour publication ou publié
dc.description.abstractenWe focus on multicriteria preference elicitation by matching. In this widely employed task, the decision maker (DM) is presented with two multicriteria options, a and b, and must assess the performance value on one criterion for b, left blank, so that she is indifferent between the two options. A reverse matching, which is normatively equivalent, can be created by integrating the answer to the description of b and letting the DM adjust a performance value on the previously totally specified option a. Such a procedure is called a bi-matching. Consistency requires that isopreferences resulting from the forward and backward matchings be identical, but they empirically differ in a systematic direction. In a matching task, multicriteria conflict refers to the magnitude of the advantage or disadvantage to be compensated. We investigate the effect of the multicriteria conflict, or trade-off size, on the difference of judgement between forward and backward matchings. We observed that the difference of judgement is increased both by multicriteria conflict and by asking deteriorating rather than improving judgements at both steps of the bi-matching. We derive some implications for the practice of preference elicitation.
dc.relation.isversionofjnlnameEuropean Journal of Operational Research
dc.relation.isversionofjnlvol242
dc.relation.isversionofjnlissue3
dc.relation.isversionofjnldate2015
dc.relation.isversionofjnlpages951-959
dc.relation.isversionofdoi10.1016/j.ejor.2014.11.001
dc.relation.isversionofjnlpublisherElsevier
dc.subject.ddclabelRecherche opérationnelleen
dc.relation.forthcomingnonen
dc.relation.forthcomingprintnonen
dc.description.ssrncandidatenon
dc.description.halcandidateoui
dc.description.readershiprecherche
dc.description.audienceInternational
dc.relation.Isversionofjnlpeerreviewedoui
dc.date.updated2019-11-12T14:00:11Z
hal.faultCode{"duplicate-entry":{"hal-01270124":{"doi":"1.0"}}}
hal.author.functionaut
hal.author.functionaut
hal.author.functionaut
hal.author.functionaut


Files in this item

FilesSizeFormatView

There are no files associated with this item.

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record