Abstract
The Analytic Hierarchy Process uses pairwise comparisons to determine the weights of criteria and the desirability of the levels. In the Self Explicated Approach the decision maker rates them explicitly. In this study we have compared the predictive power of these two approaches. The predictive power of both methods is tested with respect to the choice, the ranking and the preference scores of two sets of alternatives. The results of the laboratory study with 180 participants indicate that the Self Explicated approach, even with less input data, can show better results than the Analytic Hierarchy Process.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Akaah, LP., P.K. Korgaonkar: An Empirical Comparison of the Predictive Validity of Self-Explicated, Huber-Hybrid, Traditional Conjoint, and Hybrid Conjoint Models. J. of Marketing Res. XX (1983) 187–197.
Belton, V.: A comparison of the Analytic Hierarchy Process and a simple multiattribute value function. EJOR 26 (1986) 7–21.
Cattin, P.C., D.R. Wittink: Commercial Use of Conjoint Analysis: A Survey. J. of Marketing 46 (1982) 44–53.
Elrod, T., J.J. Louviere, S.D. Krishnakumar: An Empirical Comparison of Ratings-Based and Choice-Based Conjoint Models. J. of Mar. Res XXIX (1992) 368–377.
Forman, E.H.: Facts and fictions about the analytic hierarchy process, Mathematical Computer Modelling 17 (1993) 19–26.
Green, P.E., F.J. Carmone, Y. Wind: Subjective evaluation and conjoint measurement. Behavioral Science 17 (1972) 288–299.
Green, P.E., K. Helsen, B. Shandler: Conjoint Internal Validity under Alternative Profile Presentations. J. of Consumer Res. 15 (1988) 392–397.
Green, P.E., V. Srinivasan: Conjoint Analysis in Marketing: New Developments with Implications for Research and Practice. J. of Marketing 54 (1990) 3–19.
Hauser, J.R., F.S. Koppelman: Alternative Perceptual Mapping Techniques: Relative Accuracy and Usefulness. J. of Marketing Res. XVI (1979) 495–506.
Huizingh, K.R.E., H.CJ. Vrolijk: Extending the applicability of the AHP. SOM Research Report 94244, University of Groningen 1994.
Hwang, C.L., K. Yoon: Multiple Attribute Decision Making: Methods Applications, A State-of-the-Art Survey. Springer-Verlag, New York 1981.
Johnson, E., R.J. Meyer, S. Ghose: When choice models fail: Compensatory models in negatively correlated environments. J. of Mar. Res. 12 (1989) 169–177.
Kamenetzky, R.D.: The relationship between the analytic hierarchy process and the additive value function. Dec. Sciences 13 (1982) 702–713.
Leigh, T.W., D.B. MacKay, J.O. Summers: Reliability and Validity of conjoint analysis and self-explicated weights. J. of Marketing. Res. XXI (1984) 456–462.
Mohanty, R.P., S. Venkataraman: Use of the AHP for Selecting Automated Manufacturing Systems. Int. J. Oper. & Prod. Man. 13 (1993) 45–57.
Narasimhan, R, S.K. Vickery: An Experimental Evaluation of Articulation of Preferences in MCDM Methods. Dec. Sciences 19 (1988) 880–888.
Saaty, T.: A Scaling Method for Priorities in Hierarchical Structures. J. of Mathematical Psychology 15 (1977) 234–281.
Saaty, T.: The Analytic Hierarchy Process. McGraw-Hill, New York 1980.
Saaty, T.: Absolute and relative measurement with the AHP, the most livable cities in the united states. Soc. Ec. Planning Sc. 20 (1986) 327–331.
Schoemaker, P.J.H., C.C. Waid: An Experimental Comparison Of Different Approaches to Determining Weights in Additive Utility Models. Man. Science 28 (1982) 182–196.
Timmermans, H.: Hybrid and Non-Hybrid Evaluation Models for Predicting Outdoor Recreation Behavior: A Test of Predictive Ability. Leisure Sc. 9 (1985).
Tscheulin, D.: Ein Empirischer Vergleich der Eignung von Conjoint-Analyse und AHP zur Neuproduktplannung. Zeitschrift fur Betriebswirtshaft (1991) 1267–1279.
Van der Lans, I.A., W.J. Heiser: Constrained part-worth estimation in conjoint analysis using the self-explicated utility model. Int. J. of Res. in Marketing 9 (1992) 325–344.
Yu, P.L.: Multiple Criteria Decision Making: Concepts, Techniques, and Extensions. Plenum Press, New York 1985.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1997 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Huizingh, E.K.R.E., Vrolijk, H.C.J. (1997). The Predictive Power of the Self Explicated Approach and the Analytic Hierarchy Process: A Comparison. In: Fandel, G., Gal, T. (eds) Multiple Criteria Decision Making. Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems, vol 448. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-59132-7_15
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-59132-7_15
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-540-62097-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-59132-7
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive