The Tradeoff Elicitation Procedure is a Multi-Criteria Decision Making/Aiding method which is responsible for eliciting scaling constants and presents a robust axiomatic structure. As to its axiomatic structure, this procedure requires the decision-maker to identify the exact indifference point which induces a large number of inconsistencies in the process. In order to evaluate Decision Maker behavior in the Tradeoff elicitation and explore inconsistency in this process, a Neuroscience experiment was conducted using neuro tools, such as an Eye Tracking and an Electroencephalography (EEG). The experiment was applied in a sample of 52 management engineering students. After the data were collected, analyses were developed in order to suggest decision-makers’ behavior in the steps of this procedure. In summary, the responses of the pupils are increased during the process indicating a cognitive effort, and EEG data confirmed this result considering frontal alpha asymmetry and theta power in the frontal electrodes as variables for analysis.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Subscribe to journal
Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Aricò, P., Borghini, G., Di Flumeri, G., Colosimo, A., Bonelli, S., Golfetti, A., et al. (2016). Adaptive automation triggered by EEG-based mental workload index: a passive brain-computer interface application in realistic air traffic control environment. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2016.00539.
Belton, V., & Stewart, T. (2002). Multiple criteria decision analysis. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Berčík, J., Horská, E., Wang, R. W., & Chen, Y. C. (2016). The impact of parameters of store illumination on food shopper response. Appetite,106, 101–109.
Binda, P., Pereverzeva, M., & Murray, S. (2014). Pupil size reflects the focus of feature-based attention. Journal of Neurophysiology. https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.00FLF502.2014.
Choi, Y., Park, J., & Shin, D. (2017). A semi-supervised inattention detection method using biological signal. Annals of Operations Research,258(1), 59–78. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-017-2406-6.
Davidson, R. J., Ekman, P., Saron, C. D., Senulis, J. A., & Friesen, W. V. (1990). Approach-withdrawal and cerebral asymmetry: emotional expression and brain physiology: I. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,58(2), 330.
de Almeida, A., Cavalcante, C., Alencar, M., Ferreira, R., de Almeida-Filho, A., & Garcez, T. (2015). Multicriteria and multi-objective models for risk, reliability and maintenance decision analysis (Vol. 231)., International series in operations research and management science New York: Springer.
de Almeida, A. & Roselli, L. (2017). Visualization for decision support in FITradeoff method: Exploring its evaluation with cognitive neuroscience. In I. Linden, C. Liu & C. Colot (Eds.), Decision Support Systems VII. Data, Information and Knowledge Visualization in Decision Support Systems. LNBIP 282 (pp. 61–73). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-57487-5_5.
de Almeida, A. T., de Almeida, J. A., Costa, A. P. C. S., & de Almeida-Filho, A. T. (2016). A new method for elicitation of criteria weights in additive models: Flexible and interactive tradeoff. European Journal of Operational Research,250(1), 179–191. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2015.08.058.
Dimoka, A., Davis, F. D., Gupta, A., Pavlou, P. A., Banker, R. D., Dennis, A. R., et al. (2012). On the use of neurophysiological tools in IS research: Developing a research agenda for NeuroIS. MIS Quarterly. https://doi.org/10.2307/41703475.
Fiedler, S., & Glöckner, A. (2012). The dynamics of decision making in risky choice: an eye-tracking analysis. Frontiers in Psychology. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00335.
Figueira, J., Greco, S., & Ehrgott, M. (2005). Multiple criteria decision analysis: State of the art surveys. Berlin: Springer.
Fischer, N. L., Peres, R., & Fiorani, M. (2018). Frontal alpha asymmetry and theta oscillations associated with information sharing intention. Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnbeh.2018.00166.
Hakimi, S., & Hare, T. A. (2015). Enhanced neural responses to imagined primary rewards predict reduced monetary temporal discounting. Journal of Neuroscience. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1863-15.2015.
Hammerschmidt, W., Kagan, I., Kulke, L., & Schacht, A. (2018). Implicit reward associations impact face processing: Time-resolved evidence from event-related brain potentials and pupil dilations. Neuroimage. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2018.06.055.
Hermens, D. F., Soei, E. X., Clarke, S. D., Kohn, M. R., Gordon, E., & Williams, L. M. (2005). Resting EEG theta activity predicts cognitive performance in attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder. Pediatric Neurology. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pediatrneurol.2004.11.009.
Hügelschäfer, S., & Achtziger, A. (2017). Reinforcement, rationality, and intentions: How robust is automatic reinforcement learning in economic decision making? Journal of Behavioral Decision Making.,20(4), 913–932. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.2008.
Keeney, R., & Raiffa, H. (1976). Decisions with multiple objectives—Preferences, and value tradeoffs. New York: Wiley.
Khushaba, R. N., Wise, C., Kodagoda, S., Louviere, J., Kahn, B. E., & Townsend, C. (2013). Consumer neuroscience: Assessing the brain response to marketing stimuli using electroencephalogram (EEG) and eye tracking. Expert Systems with Applications. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2012.12.095.
Klimesch, W. (1999). EEG alpha and theta oscillations reflect cognitive and memory performance: A review and analysis. Brain Research Review. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0165-0173(98)00056-3.
Kropat, E., Tikidji-Hamburyan, R. A., & Weber, G. W. (2017). Operations research in neuroscience. Annals of Operations Research,258(1), 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-017-2633-x.
Lieberman, M. D. (2007). Social Cognitive Neuroscience: a review of core process. Annual Review Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.58.110405.085654.
Lin, C. T., Chuang, C. H., Kerick, S., Mullen, T., Jung, T. P., Ko, L. W., et al. (2016). Mind-wandering tends to occur under low perceptual demands during driving. Scientific Reports. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep21353.
Müller-Putz, G. R., Riedl, R., & Wriessnegger, S. C. (2015). Electroencephalography (EEG) as a research tool in the information systems discipline: foundations, measurement, and applications. CAIS,37, 46.
Özmen, A. (2016). Robust optimization of spline models and complex regulatory networks: Theory methods and applications. Berlin: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-30800-5.
Papesh, M. H., & Goldinger, S. D. (2014). Pupil dilation reveals cognitive effort, and cognitive effortless. International Journal of Psychophysiology. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2014.08.626.
Park, S. Q., Kahnt, T., Rieskamp, J., & Heekeren, H. R. (2011). Neurobiology of value integration: when value impacts valuation. Journal of Neuroscience. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4973-10.2011.
Pineda, P. J. G., Liou, J. J., Hsu, C. C., & Chuang, Y. C. (2018). An integrated MCDM model for improving airline operational and financial performance. Journal of Air Transport Management,68, 103–117.
Poudel, G. R., Bhattarai, A., Dickinson, D. L., & Drummond, S. (2017). Neural correlates of decision-making during a Bayesian choice task. NeuroReport. https://doi.org/10.1097/WNR.0000000000000730.
Ramsøy, T. Z., Skov, M., Christensen, M. K., & Stahlhut, C. (2018). Frontal brain asymmetry and willingness to pay. Frontiers in neuroscience,12, 138.
Rasoulzadeh, V., Erkus, E. C., Yogurt, T. A., Ulusoy, I., & Zergeroğlu, S. A. (2017). A comparative stationarity analysis of EEG signals. Annals of Operations Research,258(1), 133–157. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-016-2187-3.
Reznik, S. J., & Allen, J. J. B. (2018). Frontal asymmetry as a mediator and moderator of emotion: an updated review. Psychophysiology. https://doi.org/10.1111/psyp.12965.
Roselli, L. R. P., Frej, E. A. & de Almeida, A. T. (2018). Neuroscience experiment for graphical visualization in the FITradeoff decision support system. In Y. Chen., G. Kersten., R. Vetschera., & H. Xu (Eds.), Group Decision and Negotiation in an Uncertain World. GDN 2018. Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing (Vol. 315).
Savku, E., & Weber, G.-W. (2018). A stochastic maximum principle for a Markov regime-switching jump-diffusion model with delay and an application to finance. Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications,179(2), 696–721. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10957-017-1159-3.
Shen, K. Y., Hu, S. K., & Tzeng, G. H. (2017). Financial modeling and improvement planning for the life insurance industry by using a rough knowledge based hybrid MCDM model. Information Sciences,375, 296–313. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2016.09.055.
Van der Wel, P., & van Steenbergen, H. (2018). Pupil dilation as an index of effort in cognitive control tasks: A review. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-018-1432-y.
Wang, L., Chu, J., & Wu, J. (2007). Selection of optimum maintenance strategies based on a fuzzy analytic hierarchy process. International Journal of Production Economics. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2006.08.005.
Wascher, E., Rasch, B., Sänger, J., Hoffmann, S., Schneider, D., Rinkenauer, G., et al. (2014). Frontal theta activity reflects distinct aspects of mental fatigue. Biological Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsycho.2013.11.010.
Weber, M., & Borcherding, K. (1993). Behavioral influences on weight judgments in multi-attribute decision making. European Journal of Operational Research. https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-2217(93)90318-H.
Zolfani, S., Aghdaie, M., Derakhti, A., Zavadskas, E., & Varzandeh, M. (2013). Decision making on business issues with foresight perspective; an application of new hybrid MCDM model in shopping mall locating. Expert Systems with Applications. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2013.06.040.
This study was partially sponsored by the Coordination for the Improvements of Higher Education Personnel—Brazil (CAPES) and the Brazilian Research Council (CNPq) for which the authors are most grateful.
This study was financed in part by the Coordination for the Improvements of Higher Education Personnel—Brazil (CAPES) and the Brazilian Research Council (CNPq).
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
About this article
Cite this article
Roselli, L.R.P., Pereira, L.S., da Silva, A.L.C.L. et al. Neuroscience experiment applied to investigate decision-maker behavior in the tradeoff elicitation procedure. Ann Oper Res 289, 67–84 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-019-03394-w
- Decision neuroscience
- Tradeoff elicitation procedure
- Eye tracking