Decision-makers’ behavioral characteristics and multiple criteria decision aiding. Impact of decision-making style and experience on methods’ use, evaluation, and recommendation

• Autorzy: WACHOWICZ Tomasz , ROSZKOWSKA Ewa , FILIPOWICZ-CHOMKO Marzena
• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

The study aims to identify relationships among selected behavioral characteristics of decision-makers (DMs), i.e., experience in making complex decisions, decision-making style, and ability to use various multiple criteria decision-aiding (MCDA) methods coherently, and their impact on the evaluation of the latter functionality and recommendations for future use. The relationships were verified using experimental data through a structural equation model (SEM) and cluster analysis for three MCDA methods, i.e., AHP, SMART, and TOPSIS. One of the strongest effects identified by SEM was observed between coherence in methods’ use and the DM’s opinion on their functionality. DM’s satisfaction and future willingness to use MCDA tools are related to the positive experience gained from using these tools in advance. Decision-making styles shape method selection, with TOPSIS favored by highly experienced DMs, SMART by highly rational, and AHP by those with low experience and a rational approach.

Słowa kluczowe

EN

multiple criteria decision-making; behavioral characteristics; decision-making style; AHP; SMART; TOPSIS

• Wydawca: Politechnika Wrocławska. Oficyna Wydawnicza Politechniki Wrocławskiej
• Czasopismo: Operations Research and Decisions
• Rocznik: 2024
• Tom: 34
• Numer: 3
• Strony: 287-323

Twórcy

autor

WACHOWICZ Tomasz

• Department of Operations Research, University of Economics in Katowice, Katowice, Poland

autor

ROSZKOWSKA Ewa

• Faculty of Computer Science, Bialystok University of Technology, Białystok, Poland,

autor

FILIPOWICZ-CHOMKO Marzena

• Faculty of Computer Science, Bialystok University of Technology, Białystok, Poland

Bibliografia

• Abdelsalam, H. M., Dawoud, R. H, and Elkadi, H. A. An examination of the decision making styles of Egyptian managers. In Business Strategies and Approaches for Effective Engineering Management (2013), S. Saeed, M. A. Khan, R. Ahmad, Eds., IGI Global, pp. 219–236.
• Aish, A. M., and Jöreskog, K. G. A panel model for political efficacy and responsiveness: an application of LISREL 7 with weighted least squares. Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology 24, 4 (1990), 405–426.
• Akinci, C., and Sadler-Smith, E. Assessing individual differences in experiential (intuitive) and rational (analytical) cognitive styles. International Journal of Selection and Assessment 21, 2 (2013), 211–221.
• Al-Shemmeri, T., Al-Kloub, B., and Pearman, A. Model choice in multicriteria decision aid. European Journal of Operational Research 97, 3 (1997), 550–560.
• Aloysius, J. A., Davis, F. D., Wilson, D. D., Ross Taylor, A., and Kottemann, J. E. User acceptance of multi-criteria decision support systems: The impact of preference elicitation techniques. European Journal of Operational Research 169, 1 (2006), 273–285.
• Armstrong, S. J., Cools, E., and Sadler-Smith, E. Role of cognitive styles in business and management: Reviewing 40 years of research. International Journal of Management Reviews 14, 3 (2012), 238–262.
• Arnott, D. Cognitive biases and decision support systems development: a design science approach. Information Systems Journal 16, 1 (2006), 55–78.
• Ashraf, R., and Merunka, D. The use and misuse of student samples: An empirical investigation of European marketing research. Journal of Consumer Behaviour 16, 4 (2017), 295–308.
• Asparouhov, T., and Muthén, B. Exploratory structural equation modeling. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal 16, 3 (2009), 397–438.
• Ayal, S., Zakay, D., and Hochman, G. Deliberative adjustments of intuitive anchors: The case of diversification behavior. Synthese 189, 1 supplement (2012), 131–145.
• Ayan, B., and Abacıoğlu, S. Bibliometric analysis of the MCDM methods in the last decade: WASPAS, MABAC, EDAS, CODAS, COCOSO, and MARCOS. International Journal of Business and Economic Studies 4, (2022), 65–85.
• Baiocco, R., Laghi, F., and D’Alessio, M. Decision-making style among adolescents: Relationship with sensation seeking and locus of control. Journal of Adolescence 32, 4 (2009), 963–976.
• Basilio, M. P., Pereira, V., Costa, H. G., Santos, M., and Ghosh, A. A systematic review of the applications of multi-criteria decision aid methods (1977-2022). Electronics 11, 11 (2022), 1720.
• Bavoĺár, J., and Orosová, O. Decision-making styles and their associations with decision-making competencies and mental health. Judgment and Decision Making 10, 1 (2015), 115–122.
• Behzadian, M., Otaghsara, S. K., Yazdani, M., and Ignatius, J. A state-of the-art survey of TOPSIS applications. Expert Systems with Applications 39, 17 (2012), 13051–13069.
• Benbasat, I., and Dexter, A. S. Individual-differences in the use of decision support aids. Journal of Accounting Research 20, 1 (1982), 1–11.
• Bjørk, I. T., and Hamilton, G. A. Clinical decision making of nurses working in hospital settings. Nursing Research and Practice 2011 (2011), 524918.
• Björklund, F., and Bäckström, M. Individual differences in processing styles: Validity of the rational-experiential inventory. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology 49, 5 (2008), 439–446.
• Bottomley, P. A., Doyle, J. R., and Green, R. Testing the reliability of weight elicitation methods: Direct rating versus point allocation. Journal of Marketing Research 37, 4 (2000), 508–513.
• Brown, T. A. Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. Guilford Publications, 2014.
• Bruine de Bruin, W., Parker, A. M., and Fischhoff, B. Individual differences in adult decision making competence. Journal of personality and social psychology 92, 5 (2007), 938–956.
• Buede, D. M., and Maxwell, D. T. Rank disagreement: A comparison of multi-criteria methodologies. Journal of Multicriteria Decision Analysis 4, 1 (1995), 1–21.
• Byrne, B. M. Structural Equation Modeling with AMOS: Basic Concepts, Applications, and Programming. Routledge, 2010.
• Cacioppo, J. T., and Petty, R. E. The need for cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 42, 1 (1982), 116–131.
• Carnevale, J. J., Inbar, Y., and Lerner, J. S. Individual differences in need for cognition and decision-making competence among leaders. Personality and Individual Differences 51, 3 (2011), 274–278.
• Cassaigne, N., and Lorimier, L. A Challenging Future for i-DMSS In Intelligent Decision-making Support Systems (London, 2006), J. N. D. Gupta, G. A. Forgionne, and M. Mora T, Eds., Springer Science and Business Media, pp. 401–422.
• Chakraborty, I., Hu, P. J-H., and Cui, D. Examining the effects of cognitive style in individuals’ technology use decision making. Decision Support Systems 45, 2 (2008), 228–241.
• Chrzan, K. Three kinds of order effects in choice-based conjoint analysis. Marketing Letters 5, 2 (1994), 165–172.
• Ciardiello, F., and Genovese, A. A comparison between TOPSIS and SAW methods. Annals of Operations Research 325, 2 (2023), 967–994.
• Cinelli, M., Kadziński, M., Gonzalez, M., and Słowiński, R. How to support the application of multiple criteria decision analysis? Let us start with a comprehensive taxonomy. Omega 96 (2020), 102261.
• Crossley, C. D., and Highhouse, S. Relation of job search and choice process with subsequent satisfaction. Journal of Economic Psychology 26, 2 (2005), 255–268.
• Curşeu, P. L., and Schruijer, S. G. L. Decision styles and rationality: An analysis of the predictive validity of the general decision-making style inventory. Educational and Psychological Measurement 72, 6 (2012), 1053-–1062.
• Davies, M. Adaptive AHP: A review of marketing applications with extensions European Journal of Marketing 35, 7/8 (2001), 872–894.
• Davis, D. L., and Elnicki, R. A. User cognitive types for decision support systems. Omega 12, 6 (1984), 601–614.
• Davis, F. D. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly 13, 3 (1989), 319–340.
• Doumpos, M., Figueira, J. R., Greco, S., and Zopounidi, C., New Perspectives in Multiple Criteria Decision Making. Innovative Applications and Case Studies, vol. 1 of Multiple Criteria Decision Making. Springer, Cham, 2019.
• Driver, M. J. Individual decision making and creativity. In Organizational Behavior (Columbus, OH, 1979), S. Kerr, Ed., Grid Publishing, pp. 59–91.
• Edwards, W., and Barron, F. H. SMARTS and SMARTER: Improved simple methods for multiattribute utility measurement. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 60, 3 (1994), 306–325.
• Emrouznejad, A., and Marra, M. The state of the art development of AHP (1979–2017): a literature review with a social network analysis International Journal of Production Research 55, 22 (2017), 6653–6675.
• Engin, A., and Vetschera, R. Information representation in decision making: The impact of cognitive style and depletion effects. Decision Support Systems 103 (2017), 94–103.
• Epstein, S. Integration of the cognitive and the psychodynamic unconscious. The American Psychologist 49, 8 (1994), 709–724.
• Epstein, S., Pacini, R., Denes-Raj, V., and Heier, H. Individual differences in intuitive–experiential and analytical–rational thinking styles. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 71, 2 (1996), 390–405.
• Evans, G. W. An overview of techniques for solving multiobjective mathematical programs. Management Science 30, 11 (1984), 1268–1282.
• Ferguson, C. J. An effect size primer: A guide for clinicians and researchers. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice 40, 5 (2009), 532–538.
• Fuerst, W. L., and Cheney, P. H. Factors affecting the perceived utilization of computer-based decision support systems in the oil industry. Decision Sciences 13, 4 (2007), 554–569.
• Gershon, M. E. Model Choice in Multiobjective Decision-Making in Natural Resource Systems. PhD thesis, University of Arizona, 1981.
• Gershon, M. E., and Duckstein, L. A procedure for selection of a multiobjective technique with application to water and mineral resources. Applied Mathematics and Computation 14, 3 (1984), 245–271.
• Gettinger, J., Kiesling, E., Stummer, C., and Vetschera, R. A comparison of representations for discrete multicriteria decision problems. Decision Support Systems 54, 2 (2013), 976-985.
• Gilliams, S., Raymaekers, D., Muys, B., and Van Orshoven, J. Comparing multiple criteria decision methods to extend a geographical information system on afforestation. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 49, 1 (2005), 142–158.
• Gilovich, T., Griffin, D., and Kahneman, D. Heuristics and Biases: The Psychology of Intuitive Judgment, Cambridge University Press, 2002.
• Greco, S., Ehrgott, M., and Figueira, J. R. Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis: State of the Art Surveys, vol. 233 of International Series in Operations Research and Management Science. Springer, 2016.
• Green, G. I., and Hughes, C. T. Effects of decision support systems training and cognitive style on decision process attributes. Journal of Management Information Systems 3, 2 (1986), 83–93.
• Guitouni, A., and Martel, J.-M. Tentative guidelines to help choosing an appropriate MCDA method. European Journal of Operational Research 109, 2 (1998), 501–521.
• Hayduk, L., Cummings, G., Boadu, K., Pazderka-Robinson, H., and Boulianne, S. Testing! testing! one, two, three – Testing the theory in structural equation models. Personality and Individual Differences 42, 5 (2007), 841–850.
• Hayes, J., and Allinson, C. W. Cognitive style and its relevance for management practice. British Journal of Management 5, 1 (1994), 53–71.
• Herbst, U., and Schwarz, S. How valid is negotiation research based on student sample groups? New insights into a long-standing controversy. Negotiation Journal 27, 2 (2011), 147–170.
• Ho, W., and Ma, X. The state-of-the-art integrations and applications of the analytic hierarchy process. European Journal of Operational Research 267, 2 (2018), 399–414.
• Hobbs, B. F., Chankong, V., Hamadeh, W., and Stakhiv, E. Z. Does choice of multiobjective method matter? An experiment in water resources planning. Water Resources Research 28, 7 (1992), 1767–1779.
• Hobbs, B. F. What can we learn from experiments in multiobjective decision analysis? IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics 16, 3 (1986), 384–394.
• Hwang, C.-L., and Yoon, K. Methods for Multiple Attribute Decision Making. In Multiple Attribute Decision Making. Methods and Applications. A State-of-the-Art Survey (Berlin, Heidelberg, 1981), C.-L. Hwang and K. Yoon, Eds., vol. 186 of Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems Springer, pp. 59–191.
• Ishizaka, A., and Siraj, S. Are multi-criteria decision-making tools useful? An experimental comparative study of three methods. European Journal of Operational Research 264, 2 (2018), 462–471.1042
• Jelassi, M. T., and Ozernoy, V. M. A framework for building an expert system for MCDM models selection. In Improving Decision Making in Organisations. Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Multiple Criteria Decision Making Held at Manchester Business School, University of Manchester, UK, August 21st–26th, 1988 (Berlin, Heidelberg, 1989), A. G. Lockett and G. Islei, Eds., vol. 335 of Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems, Springer, pp. 553–562.
• Jöreskog, K. G., and Sörbom, D. Advances in Factor Analysis and Structural Equation Models. Abt Books, 1979.
• Kahraman, C., Fuzzy Multi-Criteria Decision Making: Theory and Applications with Recent Developments, vol. 16 of Springer Optimization and Its Applications. Springer, New York, NY, 2008.
• Kang, H., and Ahn, J.-W. Model setting and interpretation of results in research using structural equation modeling: A checklist with guiding questions for reporting. Asian Nursing Research 15, 3 (2021), 157–162.
• Keeney, R. L., and Raiffa, H. Decisions with Multiple Objectives. Wiley, New York, 1976.
• Kersten, G. E., and Cray, D. Perspectives on representation and analysis of negotiation: Towards cognitive support systems. Group Decision and Negotiation 5 (1996), 433–467.
• Kersten, G. E., and Noronha, S. J. Negotiation and the Web: Users’ Perception and Acceptance. IIASA Interim Report. IIASA, Laxenburg, Austria: IR-98-002, 1998.
• Kersten, G., Roszkowska, E., and Wachowicz, T. The heuristics and biases in using the negotiation support systems. In Group Decision and Negotiation. A Socio-Technical Perspective. 17th International Conference, GDN 2017, Stuttgart, Germany, August 14-18, 2017, Proceedings (Cham, 2017), M. Schoop, and D. M. Kilgour, Eds., vol. 293 of Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing, Springer, pp. 215–228.
• Kersten, G., Roszkowska, E., and Wachowicz, T. Representative decision-making and the propensity to use round and sharp numbers in preference specification. In Group Decision and Negotiation in an Uncertain World. 18th International Conference, GDN 2018, Nanjing, China, June 9-13, 2018, Proceedings (Cham, 2018), Y. Chen, G. Kersten, R. Vetschera, and H. Xu, Eds., vol. 315 of Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing, Springer, pp. 43–55.
• Kline, R. B. Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling. Guilford Publications, 2015.
• Korkmaz, I., Gökçen, H., and Çetinyokuş, T. An AHP and two-sided matching based decision support system for military personnel assignment. Information Sciences 178, 14 (2008), 2915–2927.
• Lai, K., and Green, S. B. The problem with having two watches: Assessment of fit when RMSEA and CFI disagree. Multivariate Behavioral Research 51, 2-3 (2016), 220–239.
• Leonard, D., and Straus, S. Putting your company’s whole brain to use. Harvard Business Review 75, 4 (1997), 110–122.
• Leoneti, A. Considerations regarding the choice of ranking multiple criteria decision making methods. Pesquisa Operacional 36,1071 2 (2016), 259–277.
• Lootsma, F. A., Ed. Smart, Direct Rating. In Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis via Ratio and Difference Judgement. Applied Optimization (Boston, 1999), F. A. Lootsma, Ed., vol. 29 of Applied Optimization, Springer, pp. 15–52.
• Lu, H.-P., Yu, H.-J., and Lu, S. S. K. The effects of cognitive style and model type on DSS acceptance: An empirical study. European Journal of Operational Research 131, 3 (2001), 649–663.
• MacCrimmon, K. R. An overview of multiple objective decision making. In Multiple Criteria Decision Making (Colombia, 1973), J. L. Cochrane and M. Zeleny, Eds., University of South Carolina Press, pp. 18–44.
• Madzik, P., and Falát, L. State-of-the-art on analytic hierarchy process in the last 40 years:Literature review based on Latent Dirichlet Allocation topic modelling. PLOS ONE 17, 5 (2022), e0268777.
• Mardani, A., Jusoh, A., Nor, K. M., Khalifah, Z., Zakwan, N., and Valipouri, A. Multiple criteria decision-making techniques and their applications – a review of the literature from 2000 to 2014. Economic Research-Ekonomska Istraživanja 28, 1 (2015), 516–571.
• Marks, A. D. G., Hine, D. W., Blore, R. L., and Phillips, W. J. Assessing individual differences in adolescents’ preference for rational and experiential cognition. Personality and Individual Differences 44, 1 (2008), 42–52.
• Marsh, H. W. Positive and negative global self-esteem: A substantively meaningful distinction or artifactors? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 70, 4 (1996), 810–819.
• Mela, K., Tiainen, T., and Heinisuo, M. Comparative study of multiple criteria decision making methods for building design. Advanced Engineering Informatics 26, 4 (2012), 716–726.
• Mohammed, S., and Schwall, A. Individual differences and decision making: What we know and where we go from here. In International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology (2009), G. P. Hodgkinson and J. K. Ford, Eds., Vol. 24, John Wiley and Sons Ltd., pp. 249–312.
• Montibeller, G., and von Winterfeldt, D. Cognitive and motivational biases in decision and risk analysis. Risk Analysis 35, 7 (2015), 1230–1251.
• Morton, A., and Fasolo, B. Behavioural decision theory for multi-criteria decision analysis: a guided tour. Journal of the Operational Research Society 60, 2 (2009), 268–275.
• Moshkovich, H. M., Gomes, L. F. A. M., Mechitov, A. I, and Rangel, L. A. D. Influence of models and scales on the ranking of multiattribute alternatives. Pesquisa Operacional 32, 3 (2012), 523–542.
• Novak, T. P., and Hoffman, D. L. The fit of thinking style and situation: New measures of situation-specific experiential and rational cognition. Journal of Consumer Research 36, 1 (2009), 56–72.
• Olson, D. L. Multi-Criteria Decision Support. In Handbook on Decision Support Systems 1. Basic Themes (Berlin Heidelberg, 2008), F. Burstein and C. W. Holsapple, Eds., International Handbooks Information System series, Springer, pp. 299–314.
• Oturakci, M. Developing new technology acceptance model with multi-criteria decision technique: An implementation study. Engineering Management Research 7, 2 (2018), 43–53.
• Ozernoy, V. M. A framework for choosing the most appropriate discrete alternative multiple criteria decision-making method in decision support systems and expert systems. In Toward Interactive and Intelligent Decision Support Systems (Berlin, Heidelberg, 1987), Y. Sawaragi, K. Inoue, and H. Nakayama, Eds., vol. 286 of Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems Springer, pp. 56–64.
• Ozernoy, V. M. Choosing the “best” multiple criterlv decision-making method. INFOR: Information Systems and Operational Research 30, 2 (1992), 159–171.
• Pacini, R., and Epstein, S. The relation of rational and experiential information processing styles to personality, basic beliefs, and the ratio-bias phenomenon. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 76 (1999), 972–987.
• Parker, A. M., Bruine de Bruin, W. B., and Fischhoff, B. Maximizers versus satisficers: Decision-making styles, competence, and outcomes. Judgment and Decision Making 2, 6 (2007), 342–350.
• Parker, A. M., and Fischhoff, B. Decision-making competence: External validation through an individual-differences approach. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 18, 1 (2005), 1–27.
• Petter, S., DeLone, W., and McLean, E. Measuring information systems success: models, dimensions, measures, and interrelationships. European Journal of Information Systems 17, 3 (2008), 236–263.
• Polatidis, H., Haralambopoulos, D. A., Munda, G., and Vreeker, R. Selecting an appropriate multi-criteria decision analysis technique for renewable energy planning. Energy Sources, Part B: Economics, Planning and Policy 1, 2 (2006), 181–193.
• Pretz, J. E. Intuition versus analysis: Strategy and experience in complex everyday problem solving. Memory & cognition 36, 6 (2008), 554–566.
• Ramamurthy, K., King, W. R., and Premkumar, G. User characteristics—DSS effectiveness linkage: an empirical assessment. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies 36, 3 (1992), 469–505.
• Raykov, T., and Marcoulides, G. A. A First Course in Structural Equation Modeling. Routledge, 2012.
• Razmak, J., and Aouni, B. Decision support system and multi-criteria decision aid: A state of the art and perspectives. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis 22, 1-2 (2015), 101–117.
• Reimer, R. A. Health Risk Cognitions: An Empirical Examination of the Effects of Heuristic Versus Reasoned Information Processing. PhD thesis, Iowa State University, 2009.
• Remus, W. Graduate students as surrogates for managers in experiments on business decision making. Journal of Business Research 14, 1 (1986), 19–25.
• Riedel, R., Fransoo, J., Wiers, V., Fischer, K., Cegarra, J., and Jentsch, D. Building Decision Support Systems for Acceptance. In Behavioral Operations in Planning and Scheduling (Berlin, Heidelberg, 2011), J. C. Fransoo, T. Waefler and J. R. Wilson, Eds., Springer, pp. 231-295.
• Roszkowska, E., Kersten, G., and Wachowicz, T. The impact of negotiators’ motivation on the use of decision support tools in preparation for negotiations. International Transactions in Operational Research 30, 3 (2023), 1427–1452.
• Rowe, A. J., and Davis, S. A. Intelligent Information Systems: Meeting the Challenge of the Knowledge Era. Greenwood Publishing Group Inc., 1996.
• Rowe, A. J., and Mason, R. O. Managing with Style: A Guide to Understanding, Assessing, and Improving Decision Making. Jossey-Bass, 1987.
• Roy, B., and Słowiński, R. Questions guiding the choice of a multicriteria decision aiding method. EURO Journal on Decision Processes 1, 1-2 (2013), 69–97.
• Saaty, T. Decision making with the AHP. International Journal of Services Sciences 1, 1 (2008), 83–98.
• Saaty, T. L., and Ergu, D. When is a decision-making method trustworthy? Criteria for evaluating multi-criteria decision-making methods. International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making 14, 06 (2015), 1171–1187.
• Sahoo, S. K., and Goswami, S. S. A comprehensive review of multiple criteria decision-making (MCDM) methods: Advancements, applications, and future directions. Decision Making Advances 1, 1 (2023), 25-48.
• Schmitt, T. A. Current methodological considerations in exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment 29, 4 (2011), 304–321.
• Schreiber, J. B., Nora, A., Stage, F. K., Barlow, E. A., and King, J. Reporting structural equation modeling and confirmatory factor analysis results: A review The Journal of Educational Research 99, 6 (2006), 323–338.
• Scott, S. G., and Bruce, R. A. Decision-making style: The development and assessment of a new measure. Educational and Psychological Measurement 55, 5 (1995), 818–831.
• Shibl, R., Lawley, M., and Debuse, J. Factors influencing decision support system acceptance. Decision Support Systems 54, 2 (2013), 953–961.
• Siegel, S., and Castellan, N. J. Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences. McGraw-Hill, 1988.
• Sladek, R. M., Bond, M. J., and Phillips, P. A. Age and gender differences in preferences for rational and experiential thinking. Personality and Individual Differences 49, 8 (2010), 907–911.
• Sloman, S. Two systems of reasoning. In Heuristics and Biases: The Psychology of Intuitive Judgment (New York, 2002), T. Gilovich, D. Griffin, and D. Kahneman, Eds., Cambridge University Press, pp. 379–396.
• Stanovich, K. E. Rationality and the Reflective Mind. Oxford University Press, 2011.
• Strack, F. “Order effects” in survey research: Activation and information functions of preceding questions. In Context Effects in Social and Psychological Research (New York, NY, 1992), N. Schwarz and S. Sudman, Eds., Springer, pp. 23–34.
• Tang, S., Huang, S., Zhu, J., Huang, R., Tang, Z., and Hu, J. Financial self-efficacy and disposition effect in investors: The mediating role of versatile cognitive style. Frontiers in Psychology 9 (2019), 2705.
• Tecle, A. Choice of Multicriterion Decision-Making Techniques for Watershed Management. PhD thesis, The University of Arizona, 1988.
• Thunholm, P. Decision-making style: habit, style or both? Personality and Individual Differences 36, 4 (2004), 931–944.
• Turban, E., Aronson, J. E., and Liang, T.-P. Decision Support Systems and Intelligent Systems. Pearson Prentice-Hall, 2005.
• Tversky, A., and Kahneman, D. Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science 185, 4157 (1974), 1124–1131.
• Van Bruggen, G., and Wierenga, B. Matching management support systems and managerial problem-solving modes: The key to effective decision support. European Management Journal 19, 3 (2001), 228–238.
• Vassoney, E., Mochet, A. M., Desiderio, E., Negro, G., Pilloni, M. G., and Comoglio, C. Comparing multi-criteria decision-making methods for the assessment of flow release scenarios from small hydropower plants in the alpine area. Frontiers in Environmental Science 9 (2021), 635100.
• Verma, J. P. Repeated Measures Design for Empirical Researchers. John Wiley & Sons, 2015.
• Von Winterfeldt D. On the relevance of behavioral decision research for decision analysis. In Decision Science and Technology: Reflections on the Contributions of Ward Edwards (New York, NY, 1999), J. Shanteau, B. A. Mellers, and D. A. Schum, Eds., Springer, pp. 133–154.
• Wachowicz, T., and Roszkowska, E. Can holistic declaration of preferences improve a negotiation offer scoring system? European Journal of Operational Research 299, 3 (2022),1018–1032.
• West, S. G., Finch, J. F., and Curran, P. J. Structural equation models with nonnormal variables: Problems and remedies. In Structural Equation Modeling: Concepts, Issues, and Applications (1995), R. H. Hoyle, Ed., Sage Publications, p. 56–75.
• Wątróbski, J., Jankowski, J., Ziemba , P., Karczmarczyk, A., and Zioło, M. Generalised framework for multi-criteria method selection. Omega 86 (2019), 107–124.
• Yeh, C.-H. A problem-based selection of multi-attribute decision-making methods. International Transactions in Operational Research 9, 2 (2002), 169–181.
• Yuan, K.-H., and Bentler, P. M. Robust procedures in structural equation modeling. In Handbook of Latent Variable and Related Models (2007), S.-Y. Lee, Ed., Elsevier, pp. 367–397.
• Zanakis, S. H., Solomon, A., Wishart, N., and Dublish, S. Multi-attribute decision making: A simulation comparison of select methods. European Journal of Operational Research 107, 3 (1998), 507–529.
• Zavadskas, E. K., Mardani, A., Turskis, Z., Jusoh, A., and Nor, K. M. Development of topsis method to solve complicated decision-making problems: An overview on developments from 2000 to 2015. International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making 15, 03 (2016), 645–682.
• Zyoud, S. H., and Fuchs-Hanusch, D. A bibliometric-based survey on AHP and TOPSIS techniques. Expert Systems with Applications 78 (2017), 158–181.

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.37190/ord240315