Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Including cognitive aspects in multiple criteria decision analysis

  • CS and OR in Big Data and Cloud Com
  • Published:
Annals of Operations Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Many multiple criteria decision analysis (MCDA) methods have been proposed over the last decades. Some of the most known methods share some similarities in the way they are used and configured. However, we live in a time of change and nowadays the decision-making process (especially when done in group) is even more demanding and dynamic. In this work, we propose a MCDA method that includes cognitive aspects (cognitive analytic process, CAP). By taking advantage of aspects such as expertise level, credibility and behaviour style of the decision-makers, we propose a method that relates these aspects with problem configurations (alternatives and criteria preferences) done by each decision-maker. In this work, we evaluated the CAP in terms of configuration costs and the capability to enhance the quality of the decision. We have used the satisfaction level as a metric to compare our method with other known MCDA methods in literature (utility function, AHP and TOPSIS). Our method proved to be capable to achieve higher satisfaction levels compared to other MCDA methods, especially when the decision suggested by CAP is different from the one proposed by those methods.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ahn, B., & Choi, S. (2012). Aggregation of ordinal data using ordered weighted averaging operator weights. Annals of Operations Research, 201(1), 1–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bates, J. (1994). The role of emotion in believable agents. Communications of the ACM, 37(7), 122–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bozóki, S., DezsőL, Poesz A., & Temesi, J. (2013). Analysis of pairwise comparison matrices: An empirical research. Annals of Operations Research, 211(1), 511–528.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carneiro, J., Marreiros, G., & Novais, P. (2015a). Using satisfaction analysis to predict decision quality. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence \(^{\rm TM}\), 13(1), 45–57.

  • Carneiro, J., Martinho, D., Marreiros, G., & Novais, P. (2015b). Defining agents’ behaviour for negotiation contexts (pp. 3–14). Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carneiro, J., Martinho, D., Marreiros, G., & Novais, P. (2015c). A general template to configure multi-criteria problems in ubiquitous GDSS. International Journal of Software Engineering and its Applications, 9, 193–206. doi:10.14257/astl.205.97.17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carneiro, J., Santos, R., Marreiros, G., & Novais, P. (2015d). UbiGDSS: A theoretical model to predict decision-makers’ satisfaction. International Journal of Multimedia and Ubiquitous Engineering, 10(7), 191–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Castelfranchi, C. (1994). Guarantees for autonomy in cognitive agent architecture. In M. J. Wooldridge & N. R. Jennings (Eds.), Intelligent agents (pp. 56–70). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.

  • Chen, C. T. (2000). Extensions of the topsis for group decision-making under fuzzy environment. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 114(1), 1–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De, V. T. (1993). Presenting clinical pharmacology and therapeutics: A problem based approach for choosing and prescribing drugs. British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, 35(6), 581–586.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dehe, B., & Bamford, D. (2015). Development, test and comparison of two multiple criteria decision analysis (mcda) models: A case of healthcare infrastructure location. Expert Systems with Applications, 42(19), 6717–6727.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dennis, A. R. (1996). Information exchange and use in small group decision making. Small Group Research, 27(4), 532–550.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edwards, W. (1954). The theory of decision making. Psychological Bulletin, 51(4), 380.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Falcone, R., & Castelfranchi, C. (2001). Social trust: A cognitive approach. In C. Castelfranchi & Y.-H. Tan (Eds.), Trust and deception in virtual societies (pp. 55–90). Dordrecht: Springer.

  • Fenton-O’Creevy, M., Soane, E., Nicholson, N., & Willman, P. (2011). Thinking, feeling and deciding: The influence of emotions on the decision making and performance of traders. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 32(8), 1044–1061.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Figueira, J., Greco, S., & Ehrgott, M. (2005). Multiple criteria decision analysis: State of the art surveys (Vol. 78). Berlin: Springer Science & Business Media.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Flanagin, A. J., & Metzger, M. J. (2008). Digital media and youth: Unparalleled opportunity and unprecedented responsibility. In M. J. Metzger & A. J. Flanagin (Eds.), Digital media, youth, and credibility. The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation Series on Digital Media and Learning (pp. 5–28). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. doi:10.1162/dmal.9780262562324.005.

  • Frith, C. D., & Singer, T. (2008). The role of social cognition in decision making. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 363(1511), 3875–3886.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Golmohammadi, D., & Mellat-Parast, M. (2012). Developing a grey-based decision-making model for supplier selection. International Journal of Production Economics, 137(2), 191–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huber, G. P. (1984). Issues in the design of group decision support sytems. MIS Quarterly, 8(3), 195–204.

  • Kiesler, S., Siegel, J., & McGuire, T. W. (1984). Social psychological aspects of computer-mediated communication. American Psychologist, 39(10), 1123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kou, G., & Wu, W. (2014). Multi-criteria decision analysis for emergency medical service assessment. Annals of Operations Research, 223(1), 239–254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levy, G. (2007). Decision making in committees: Transparency, reputation, and voting rules. The American Economic Review, 97(1), 150–168.

  • Luthans, F. (2011). Organizational behavior (Vol. 46, p. 594). Irwin: McGraw-Hill. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.46.1.59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martinho, D., Carneiro, J., Marreiros, G., & Novais, P. (2015). Dealing with agents’ behaviour in the decision-making process. In Workshop proceedings of the 11th international conference on intelligent environments (Vol. 19, p. 4). IOS Press.

  • Ogiela, L., & Ogiela, M. R. (2014a). Cognitive systems and bio-inspired computing in homeland security. Journal of Network and Computer Applications, 38, 34–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ogiela, L., & Ogiela, M. R. (2014b). Cognitive systems for intelligent business information management in cognitive economy. International Journal of Information Management, 34(6), 751–760.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rahim, M. A., & Magner, N. R. (1995). Confirmatory factor analysis of the styles of handling interpersonal conflict: First-order factor model and its invariance across groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80(1), 122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ram, C., Montibeller, G., & Morton, A. (2011). Extending the use of scenario planning and MCDA for the evaluation of strategic options. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 62(5), 817–829.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saaty, T. L. (1988). What is the analytic hierarchy process?. Berlin: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Saaty, T. L. (2008). Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process. International Journal of Services Sciences, 1(1), 83–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwarz, N. (2000). Emotion, cognition, and decision making. Cognition & Emotion, 14(4), 433–440.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwenk, C. R. (1988). The cognitive perspective on strategic decision making. Journal of Management Studies, 25(1), 41–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simon, H. A. (1959). Theories of decision-making in economics and behavioral science. The American Economic Review, 49(3), 253–283.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon, H. A. (1965). Administrative behavior (Vol. 4). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon, H. A. (1979). Rational decision making in business organizations. The American Economic Review, 64, 493–514. doi:10.2307/1808698.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon, H. A. (1986). Rationality in psychology and economics. Journal of Business, 59(4), S209–S224.

  • Simon, H. A. (1987). Making management decisions: The role of intuition and emotion. The Academy of Management Executive, 1(1), 57–64.

  • Smith, E. R., & Conrey, F. R. (2007). Agent-based modeling: A new approach for theory building in social psychology. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 11(1), 87–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tavana, M., Sodenkamp, M. A., & Suhl, L. (2010). A soft multi-criteria decision analysis model with application to the european union enlargement. Annals of Operations Research, 181(1), 393–421.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tzeng, G. H., & Huang, J. J. (2011). Multiple attribute decision making: Methods and applications. Boca Raton: CRC Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang, J. (2012). Robust optimization analysis for multiple attribute decision making problems with imprecise information. Annals of Operations Research, 197(1), 109–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by COMPETE Programme (operational programme for competitiveness) within Project POCI-01-0145-FEDER-007043, by National Funds through the FCT - Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia (Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology) within the Projects UID/CEC/00319/2013, UID/EEA/00760/2013, and the João Carneiro Ph.D. Grant with the Reference SFRH/BD/89697/2012.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. GECAD - Research Group on Intelligent Engineering and Computing for Advanced Innovation and Development, Institute of Engineering, Polytechnic of Porto, 4200-072, Porto, Portugal

    João Carneiro, Luís Conceição, Diogo Martinho & Goreti Marreiros

  2. ALGORITMI Centre, University of Minho, Guimarães, 4800-058, Portugal

    João Carneiro & Paulo Novais

Authors
  1. João Carneiro
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Luís Conceição
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Diogo Martinho
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Goreti Marreiros
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Paulo Novais
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to João Carneiro.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Carneiro, J., Conceição, L., Martinho, D. et al. Including cognitive aspects in multiple criteria decision analysis. Ann Oper Res 265, 269–291 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-016-2391-1

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-016-2391-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation